| A |
|---|
| A/A test | A test in which both groups get the same version. It checks the system: any "significant" result is a false positive. | | - Kohavi, R., Tang, D., & Xu, Y. (2020). Trustworthy online controlled experiments: A practical guide to A/B testing. Cambridge University Press. doi ↗
|
|---|
| A/B test | An experiment in which users are randomly split between the current version (A) and a changed version (B), and the groups' outcomes are compared to estimate the effect of the change. | - R13Experimentation and product analyticsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Kohavi, R., Tang, D., & Xu, Y. (2020). Trustworthy online controlled experiments: A practical guide to A/B testing. Cambridge University Press. doi ↗
|
|---|
| A3 report | A one-page account of a problem, its analysis, the proposed countermeasures and the follow-up plan, named after the paper size and used at Toyota to structure problem-solving and mentoring. | - R10Lean product developmentFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Shook, J. (2008). Managing to learn: Using the A3 management process to solve problems, gain agreement, mentor, and lead. Lean Enterprise Institute.
|
|---|
| Abandonment | Stopping use of a technology after adopting it, often without anyone deciding to (Greenhalgh et al., 2017). | | - Greenhalgh, T., Wherton, J., Papoutsi, C., Lynch, J., Hughes, G., A'Court, C., Hinder, S., Fahy, N., Procter, R., & Shaw, S. (2017). Beyond adoption: A new framework for theorizing and evaluating nonadoption, abandonment, and challenges to the scale-up, spread, and sustainability of health and care technologies. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(11), Article e367. doi ↗
- Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
|
|---|
| Abductive reasoning | Reasoning from a set of observations to the most plausible explanation for them. It is the step by which synthesis moves from what was seen to a claim about why. | - R06Design methods IFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Kolko, J. (2010). Abductive thinking and sensemaking: The drivers of design synthesis. Design Issues, 26(1), 15–28. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Absolute and relative risk | Absolute risk is the chance of an outcome. Relative risk compares two chances as a ratio, so 'twice as likely' can describe a rise from 1 to 2 in 1,000. | - R18Basic statistics for educational technologistsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Gigerenzer, G., Gaissmaier, W., Kurz-Milcke, E., Schwartz, L. M., & Woloshin, S. (2007). Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 8(2), 53–96. doi ↗
- Spiegelhalter, D. (2019). The art of statistics: Learning from data. Pelican.
|
|---|
| Academic analytics | Analytics applied at institution level to questions of management, such as enrolment, retention and resourcing, as distinct from analytics aimed at learning itself. | - R15Learning analyticsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Long, P., & Siemens, G. (2011). Penetrating the fog: Analytics in learning and education. EDUCAUSE Review, 46(5). er.educause.edu ↗
- Campbell, J. P., DeBlois, P. B., & Oblinger, D. G. (2007). Academic analytics: A new tool for a new era. EDUCAUSE Review, 42(4), 40–57.
|
|---|
| Acceptance criteria | The conditions a piece of work must meet before the team and the user agree it is done. | | - Jeffries, R. (2001). Essential XP: Card, conversation, confirmation. ronjeffries.com. ronjeffries.com ↗
- Cohn, M. (2004). User stories applied: For agile software development. Addison-Wesley. mountaingoatsoftware.com ↗
|
|---|
| Accuracy | The share of all students a model is right about. It means little without the base rate: if one student in 20 will leave, a model that flags nobody is 95% accurate. | | - Bowers, A. J., Sprott, R., & Taff, S. A. (2013). Do we know who will drop out? A review of the predictors of dropping out of high school: Precision, sensitivity, and specificity. The High School Journal, 96(2), 77–100. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Acquiescence bias | The tendency of some respondents to agree with a statement whatever it says (Pew Research Center, 2021). | | - Schuman, H., & Presser, S. (1981). Questions and answers in attitude surveys: Experiments on question form, wording, and context. Academic Press. archive.org ↗
- Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5(3), 213–236. doi ↗
- Pew Research Center. (2021). Writing survey questions. pewresearch.org ↗
|
|---|
| Action planning | Deciding in detail when, where and how a new practice will be used (Sims et al., 2021). | | - Sims, S., Fletcher-Wood, H., O'Mara-Eves, A., Cottingham, S., Stansfield, C., Van Herwegen, J., & Anders, J. (2021). What are the characteristics of effective teacher professional development? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Education Endowment Foundation. files.eric.ed.gov ↗
|
|---|
| Action research | Enquiry carried out by practitioners into their own practice, in cycles of planning, acting, observing and reflecting. | - R21Professional learning that changes practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34–46. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Actionable metric | A measure that ties a specific, repeatable action to an observed result, so that a change in it tells the team what to do next. The opposite of a vanity metric. | - R10Lean product developmentFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup: How today's entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. Crown Business. theleanstartup.com ↗
- Schonfeld, E. (2011, September 24). Founder stories: Eric Ries on "vanity metrics" and "success theater". TechCrunch. techcrunch.com ↗
|
|---|
| Activity data | Records a platform makes as a by-product of use: logins, clicks, page views, submissions and timestamps. | | - Gašević, D., Dawson, S., & Siemens, G. (2015). Let’s not forget: Learning analytics are about learning. TechTrends, 59(1), 64–71. doi ↗
- Gašević, D., Dawson, S., Rogers, T., & Gasevic, D. (2016). Learning analytics should not promote one size fits all: The effects of instructional conditions in predicting academic success. The Internet and Higher Education, 28, 68–84. doi ↗
- Kovanović, V., Gašević, D., Dawson, S., Joksimović, S., Baker, R. S., & Hatala, M. (2015). Penetrating the black box of time-on-task estimation. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 184–193). ACM. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Adaptive learning | Software that changes the content, difficulty or order of tasks for each student according to a running estimate of what that student knows. | - R16AI in learning productsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2023). Artificial intelligence and the future of teaching and learning: Insights and recommendations. files.eric.ed.gov ↗
- OECD. (2026). OECD digital education outlook 2026: Exploring effective uses of generative AI in education. OECD Publishing. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Adjusted-Wald interval | A confidence interval for a proportion that behaves well with small samples (Sauro & Lewis, 2016). | | - Sauro, J., & Lewis, J. R. (2016). Quantifying the user experience: Practical statistics for user research (2nd ed.). Morgan Kaufmann. shop.elsevier.com ↗
- Agresti, A., & Coull, B. A. (1998). Approximate is better than "exact" for interval estimation of binomial proportions. The American Statistician, 52(2), 119–126. doi ↗
|
|---|
| ADKAR | A model of individual change with five steps in order: awareness, desire, knowledge, ability and reinforcement. It is used to find where a person or group is stuck. | - R19Adoption and change in schoolsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Hiatt, J. M. (2006). ADKAR: A model for change in business, government and our community. Prosci Learning Center Publications.
|
|---|
| Administrative burden | The learning, compliance and psychological costs a system imposes on the people it deals with (Herd & Moynihan, 2018). | | - Herd, P., & Moynihan, D. P. (2018). Administrative burden: Policymaking by other means. Russell Sage Foundation. doi ↗
- Moynihan, D., Herd, P., & Harvey, H. (2015). Administrative burden: Learning, psychological, and compliance costs in citizen-state interactions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 43–69. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Adopter categories | Five groups sorted by how early they take up an innovation, from innovators to laggards (Rogers, 2003). | | - Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
- Moore, G. A. (1991). Crossing the chasm: Marketing and selling technology products to mainstream customers. HarperBusiness.
|
|---|
| Adoption | A lasting change in what people do because of a new tool or practice. More than access, and more than a login. | | - Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
- Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Harvard University Press. doi ↗
- Sharples, J., Eaton, J., & Boughelaf, J. (2024). A school's guide to implementation: Guidance report. Education Endowment Foundation. educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk ↗
|
|---|
| Aesthetic–usability effect | The tendency of people to judge a better-looking interface as easier to use, whether or not it is. | - R08UX foundations and design systemsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Tractinsky, N., Katz, A. S., & Ikar, D. (2000). What is beautiful is usable. Interacting with Computers, 13(2), 127–145. doi ↗
- Lidwell, W., Holden, K., & Butler, J. (2010). Universal principles of design (Rev. and updated ed.). Rockport Publishers.
|
|---|
| Affinity diagram | A wall of observations grouped by shared meaning, built from the bottom up, with each group labelled (Krause & Pernice, 2024). | | - Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual design: Defining customer-centered systems. Morgan Kaufmann. archive.org ↗
- Scupin, R. (1997). The KJ method: A technique for analyzing data derived from Japanese ethnology. Human Organization, 56(2), 233–237. doi ↗
- Krause, R., & Pernice, K. (2024). Affinity diagramming for collaboratively sorting UX findings and design ideas. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
|
|---|
| Affordance | A relationship between the properties of an object and the abilities of the person using it, which determines how it could be used (Norman, 2013). | | - Norman, D. (2013). The design of everyday things (Rev. and expanded ed.). Basic Books. basicbooks.com ↗
- Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.
- Norman, D. A. (1999). Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions, 6(3), 38–43. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Age Appropriate Design Code | The United Kingdom regulator's statutory code of 15 standards for online services likely to be used by under-18s, including high privacy by default and no nudging to give up data. Also called the Children's Code. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Information Commissioner's Office. (2020). Age appropriate design: A code of practice for online services. Information Commissioner's Office.
|
|---|
| Agile Manifesto | A statement written in 2001 by 17 practitioners, setting out four values and 12 principles for software development; it prescribes no roles, events or tools (Beck et al., 2001). | | - Beck, K., Beedle, M., van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., Grenning, J., Highsmith, J., Hunt, A., Jeffries, R., Kern, J., Marick, B., Martin, R. C., Mellor, S., Schwaber, K., Sutherland, J., & Thomas, D. (2001). Manifesto for Agile Software Development. agilemanifesto.org ↗
- Fowler, M. (2018, August 25). The state of agile software in 2018 [Keynote transcript]. martinfowler.com. martinfowler.com ↗
|
|---|
| AI agent | A system in which a model plans and carries out a multi-step task by calling tools such as search, code or other software, with limited human direction. | - R16AI in learning productsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2021). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach (4th ed.). Pearson. doi ↗
|
|---|
| AI literacy | The knowledge and skills that let people understand what AI systems do, use them well and judge their output critically. | - R16AI in learning productsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Miao, F., & Holmes, W. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO. unesco.org ↗
- Long, D., & Magerko, B. (2020). What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–16. doi ↗
|
|---|
| AI Risk Management Framework | The US National Institute of Standards and Technology's framework, which organises AI risk work into four functions: govern, map, measure and manage (National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2023). | | - National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2023). Artificial intelligence risk management framework (AI RMF 1.0) (NIST AI 100-1). U.S. Department of Commerce. doi ↗
- National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2024). Artificial intelligence risk management framework: Generative artificial intelligence profile (NIST AI 600-1). U.S. Department of Commerce. doi ↗
|
|---|
| AI-writing detector | A tool that labels text as human- or AI-written; seven detectors wrongly flagged most essays by non-native English writers, so a flag is a reason for a conversation, never proof (Liang et al., 2023). | | - Liang, W., Yuksekgonul, M., Mao, Y., Wu, E., & Zou, J. (2023). GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers. Patterns, 4(7), Article 100779. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Alert threshold | The score above which a student is flagged. Moving it changes how many students are flagged and how many flags are wrong. | | - Bowers, A. J., Sprott, R., & Taff, S. A. (2013). Do we know who will drop out? A review of the predictors of dropping out of high school: Precision, sensitivity, and specificity. The High School Journal, 96(2), 77–100. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Algorithmic bias | Systematic differences in how well an automated system works for different groups of people, such as a marking model that is less accurate for some students than others. | - R16AI in learning productsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2023). Artificial intelligence risk management framework (AI RMF 1.0) (NIST AI 100-1). U.S. Department of Commerce. doi ↗
- Baker, R. S., & Hawn, A. (2022). Algorithmic bias in education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 32(4), 1052–1092. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Alignment diagram | A picture, such as a journey map, service blueprint, experience map or ecosystem model, that helps an organisation see the user's experience alongside its own work (Kalbach, 2020). | | - Kalbach, J. (2020). Mapping experiences: A complete guide to customer alignment through journeys, blueprints, and diagrams (2nd ed.). O'Reilly Media. openlibrary.org ↗
|
|---|
| Alpha phase | The delivery phase in which a team tries out different solutions to the problems found in discovery, tests its riskiest assumptions and expects to throw away the code (Government Digital Service, 2019). | | - Government Digital Service. (2019). How the alpha phase works. GOV.UK Service Manual. gov.uk ↗
|
|---|
| Alternative text (alt text) | A short written description attached to an image, read aloud by screen readers and shown when the image fails to load. | - R08UX foundations and design systemsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - World Wide Web Consortium. (2023). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 (W3C Recommendation). w3.org ↗
- Horton, S., & Quesenbery, W. (2013). A web for everyone: Designing accessible user experiences. Rosenfeld Media.
|
|---|
| Always-valid p-value | A p-value designed to stay correct however often a running test is checked (Johari et al., 2022). | | - Johari, R., Koomen, P., Pekelis, L., & Walsh, D. (2022). Always valid inference: Continuous monitoring of A/B tests. Operations Research, 70(3), 1806–1821. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Analysis of variance (ANOVA) | A test of whether the means of three or more groups differ, made by comparing the variation between groups with the variation inside them. | - R18Basic statistics for educational technologistsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Fisher, R. A. (1925). Statistical methods for research workers. Oliver and Boyd.
- Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). SAGE.
|
|---|
| Analytic memo | A note written by the analyst during coding that records an emerging idea, a question or the reason for a decision, and that later feeds the write-up. | - R06Design methods IFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Saldaña, J. (2025). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (5th ed.). SAGE.
|
|---|
| Andragogy | The theory and practice of teaching adults, which assumes that they are self-directed, bring experience, and learn best what they can use soon. | - R21Professional learning that changes practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Knowles, M. S. (1973). The adult learner: A neglected species. Gulf Publishing.
|
|---|
| Anonymisation | Altering data so that no person can be identified from it by any means reasonably likely to be used. Truly anonymised data falls outside data protection law. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. (2014). Opinion 05/2014 on anonymisation techniques (WP 216). European Commission.
- Ohm, P. (2010). Broken promises of privacy: Responding to the surprising failure of anonymization. UCLA Law Review, 57(6), 1701–1777.
|
|---|
| API | Application programming interface: the published set of requests a system will accept from other software. | | |
|---|
| Area under the curve (AUC) | A score from 0.5 (chance) to 1 (perfect) for how well a predictive model ranks students who had the outcome above those who did not, across all thresholds. | - R15Learning analyticsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Bowers, A. J., Sprott, R., & Taff, S. A. (2013). Do we know who will drop out? A review of the predictors of dropping out of high school: Precision, sensitivity, and specificity. The High School Journal, 96(2), 77–100. doi ↗
- Fawcett, T. (2006). An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognition Letters, 27(8), 861–874. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Artefact | An object that people make or use in their work, such as a mark book, planner or annotated worksheet, collected or photographed as evidence of how the work is really done. | - R04Discovery researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual design: Defining customer-centered systems. Morgan Kaufmann. archive.org ↗
|
|---|
| Assent | A child's own agreement to take part in research, sought alongside a guardian's consent (British Educational Research Association, 2024). R05 A child's own agreement to take part, sought alongside consent from a responsible adult (British Educational Research Association, 2024). R13 Agreement to take part given by children too young to consent; principles of consent apply to children and young people as well as to adults (British Educational Research Association, 2024). | | - British Educational Research Association. (2024). Ethical guidelines for educational research (5th ed.). bera.ac.uk ↗
- Lundy, L. (2007). ‘Voice’ is not enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal, 33(6), 927–942. doi ↗
- United Nations. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child (General Assembly resolution 44/25). ohchr.org ↗
|
|---|
| Assisted digital | Support given to people who cannot use an online service unaided, by phone, in person or through someone acting for them, so that they still get the same result. | - R02Service design and systems thinkingFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Government Digital Service. (2019). Service Standard. GOV.UK. gov.uk ↗
|
|---|
| Assistive technology | Hardware or software that people with disabilities use to operate a computer or read its content, such as screen readers, screen magnifiers, switch devices and voice control. | - R08UX foundations and design systemsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - World Wide Web Consortium. (2023). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 (W3C Recommendation). w3.org ↗
- Horton, S., & Quesenbery, W. (2013). A web for everyone: Designing accessible user experiences. Rosenfeld Media.
|
|---|
| Assumption | A belief a plan depends on that has not yet been shown to be true. | | - Bland, D. J., & Osterwalder, A. (2019). Testing business ideas: A field guide for rapid experimentation. Wiley. books.google.com ↗
- Gothelf, J., & Seiden, J. (2013). Lean UX: Applying lean principles to improve user experience. O'Reilly Media. oreilly.com ↗
|
|---|
| Assumptions mapping | Sorting a plan's beliefs by how important they are and how much evidence supports them (Bland, 2020). | | - Bland, D. J. (2020, August 4). How assumptions mapping can focus your teams on running experiments that matter. Strategyzer. strategyzer.com ↗
- Bland, D. J., & Osterwalder, A. (2019). Testing business ideas: A field guide for rapid experimentation. Wiley. books.google.com ↗
|
|---|
| At-risk student | A student a model or a teacher judges likely to fail, fall behind or leave without extra support. The label is a prediction, not a fact about the student. | - R15Learning analyticsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Arnold, K. E., & Pistilli, M. D. (2012). Course Signals at Purdue: Using learning analytics to increase student success. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 267–270). ACM. doi ↗
- Kuzilek, J., Hlosta, M., Herrmannova, D., Zdrahal, Z., Vaclavek, J., & Wolff, A. (2015). OU Analyse: Analysing at-risk students at The Open University. Learning Analytics Review, LAK15-1, 1–16. oro.open.ac.uk ↗
|
|---|
| Atomic design | A mental model of interfaces as built from atoms, molecules, organisms, templates and pages, which treats a screen as both a whole and a set of shared parts (Frost, 2016). | | |
|---|
| Atomic research | Breaking research into small linked units, such as facts, insights and recommendations, that can be found and reused (Pidcock, 2018). | | |
|---|
| Attack surface | Every point at which an attacker could try to get into or take data out of a system: login pages, APIs, integrations, devices and the people who use them. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Manadhata, P. K., & Wing, J. M. (2011). An attack surface metric. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 37(3), 371–386. doi ↗
- Shostack, A. (2014). Threat modeling: Designing for security. Wiley.
|
|---|
| Attention budget | This guide's name for the limited working memory a user has, shared between the task and the interface. | | - Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261–292. doi ↗
- Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. doi ↗
- Mayer, R. E. (2024). The past, present, and future of the cognitive theory of multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review, 36(1), Article 8. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Attitudinal method | A method that records what people say: their views, ratings and feelings. | | - Rohrer, C. (2022). When to use which user-experience research methods. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
|
|---|
| Attitudinal research | Research that collects what people say: their beliefs, opinions and reports (Rohrer, 2022). | | - Rohrer, C. (2022). When to use which user-experience research methods. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
- LaPiere, R. T. (1934). Attitudes vs. actions. Social Forces, 13(2), 230–237. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Attrition | The loss of participants from a study before outcomes are measured. Differential attrition, where one group loses more than the other, can bias the estimated effect. | - R13Experimentation and product analyticsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - What Works Clearinghouse. (2022). What Works Clearinghouse procedures and standards handbook, version 5.0 (WWC 2022008). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. ies.ed.gov ↗
- Education Endowment Foundation. (2022). Statistical analysis guidance for EEF evaluations. d2tic4wvo1iusb.cloudfront.net ↗
|
|---|
| Audience segmentation | Dividing the people a change affects into groups by role, need or situation, so that each group gets the message that applies to it. | - R20Communicating change to schoolsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Slater, M. D. (1996). Theory and method in health audience segmentation. Journal of Health Communication, 1(3), 267–284. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Audience-first message | A message that opens with what changes for the reader, from when, and what they must do. | | |
|---|
| Audit log | A protected record of who did what in a system and when, such as who viewed or exported a student's record, used to detect misuse and investigate incidents. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Kent, K., & Souppaya, M. (2006). Guide to computer security log management (NIST Special Publication 800-92). National Institute of Standards and Technology. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Austin's Butterfly | An EL Education film in which first-grade students use critique to help a classmate take a scientific drawing of a butterfly through several drafts (Berger et al., 2014). | | - Berger, R., Rugen, L., & Woodfin, L. (2014). Leaders of their own learning: Transforming schools through student-engaged assessment. Jossey-Bass. wiley.com ↗
- Berger, R. (2003). An ethic of excellence: Building a culture of craftsmanship with students. Heinemann. heinemann.com ↗
|
|---|
| Authentication and authorisation | Authentication proves who a user is; authorisation decides what that user may see or do. Many breaches of student data come from a failure of the second. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Grassi, P. A., Garcia, M. E., & Fenton, J. L. (2017). Digital identity guidelines (NIST Special Publication 800-63-3). National Institute of Standards and Technology. doi ↗
- OWASP Foundation. (2021). OWASP Top 10:2021. OWASP Foundation.
|
|---|
| Automated decision-making | A decision about a person made by a system with no meaningful human involvement, such as automatic grading or placement. Several laws give a right to human review. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - European Union. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation). Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 1–88.
- Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Floridi, L. (2017). Why a right to explanation of automated decision-making does not exist in the General Data Protection Regulation. International Data Privacy Law, 7(2), 76–99. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Automated essay scoring | Software that assigns a mark to a piece of extended writing, using a model trained on essays that people have already marked. | - R16AI in learning productsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Shermis, M. D., & Burstein, J. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of automated essay evaluation: Current applications and new directions. Routledge.
|
|---|
| Automation bias | The tendency to accept an automated system's output without checking it, even when other evidence contradicts it. It weakens human review of AI decisions. | - R16AI in learning productsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Parasuraman, R., & Manzey, D. H. (2010). Complacency and bias in human use of automation: An attentional integration. Human Factors, 52(3), 381–410. doi ↗
|
|---|
| B |
|---|
| Back end | The servers and databases that hold a system's rules and records, out of the user's sight. | | |
|---|
| Backlog | The ranked list of work a team may do next. In Scrum, the Product Backlog carries a Product Goal (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2020). | | - Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (2020). The Scrum Guide: The definitive guide to Scrum: The rules of the game. scrumguides.org ↗
|
|---|
| Backlog refinement | The continuing work of splitting, clarifying, sizing and reordering Product Backlog items so that the ones near the top are ready to be worked on. | - R09Agile and Scrum in practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (2020). The Scrum Guide: The definitive guide to Scrum: The rules of the game. scrumguides.org ↗
- Rubin, K. S. (2012). Essential Scrum: A practical guide to the most popular agile process. Addison-Wesley.
|
|---|
| Backstage | Work that supports a service but that the user does not see. | | - Shostack, G. L. (1984). Designing services that deliver. Harvard Business Review, 62(1), 133–139. hbr.org ↗
- Bitner, M. J., Ostrom, A. L., & Morgan, F. N. (2008). Service blueprinting: A practical technique for service innovation. California Management Review, 50(3), 66–94. doi ↗
- Gibbons, S. (2017, August 27). Service blueprints: Definition. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
|
|---|
| Backward planning | Planning professional development from the student learning you want back to what teachers would do differently, what the school must provide, what teachers must learn, and only then the session (Guskey, 2002). | | - Guskey, T. R. (2002). Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 45–51. ascd.org ↗
|
|---|
| Balanced design | A programme with at least one mechanism for each of the four purposes: insight, goals, techniques and embedding practice (Sims et al., 2021). | | - Sims, S., Fletcher-Wood, H., O'Mara-Eves, A., Cottingham, S., Stansfield, C., Van Herwegen, J., & Anders, J. (2021). What are the characteristics of effective teacher professional development? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Education Endowment Foundation. files.eric.ed.gov ↗
|
|---|
| Balancing loop | A feedback loop that works against change and pulls a system back towards a goal or limit, as a thermostat does. | - R02Service design and systems thinkingFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer (D. Wright, Ed.). Chelsea Green.
- Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday/Currency.
|
|---|
| Base rate | How common an outcome is in a group before any prediction is made. R18 How common an outcome is in the population before any test or model is applied. | | - Bowers, A. J., Sprott, R., & Taff, S. A. (2013). Do we know who will drop out? A review of the predictors of dropping out of high school: Precision, sensitivity, and specificity. The High School Journal, 96(2), 77–100. doi ↗
- Gigerenzer, G., Gaissmaier, W., Kurz-Milcke, E., Schwartz, L. M., & Woloshin, S. (2007). Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 8(2), 53–96. doi ↗
- Meehl, P. E., & Rosen, A. (1955). Antecedent probability and the efficiency of psychometric signs, patterns, or cutting scores. Psychological Bulletin, 52(3), 194–216. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Baseline equivalence | Evidence that the intervention and comparison groups were similar on key characteristics, such as prior attainment, before the intervention began. | - R13Experimentation and product analyticsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - What Works Clearinghouse. (2022). What Works Clearinghouse procedures and standards handbook, version 5.0 (WWC 2022008). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. ies.ed.gov ↗
|
|---|
| Batch | A set of changes released together. Larger batches delay feedback on every change inside them (Reinertsen, 2009). | | - Reinertsen, D. G. (2009). The principles of product development flow: Second generation lean product development. Celeritas Publishing. lpd2.com ↗
|
|---|
| Bayes' theorem | The rule for updating the probability of something in the light of new evidence, combining how likely it was beforehand with how well the evidence fits. | - R18Basic statistics for educational technologistsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Spiegelhalter, D. (2019). The art of statistics: Learning from data. Pelican.
- Gigerenzer, G., & Hoffrage, U. (1995). How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review, 102(4), 684–704. doi ↗
- Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., Dunson, D. B., Vehtari, A., & Rubin, D. B. (2013). Bayesian data analysis (3rd ed.). CRC Press. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Before-and-after comparison | Comparing a measure before and after a change. It credits the change with everything else that happened in between, such as a new term, an exam season or a new timetable. | | - Kohavi, R., Tang, D., & Xu, Y. (2020). Trustworthy online controlled experiments: A practical guide to A/B testing. Cambridge University Press. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Behavioural method | A method that records what people do: their actions, successes and errors. | | - Rohrer, C. (2022). When to use which user-experience research methods. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
|
|---|
| Behavioural research | Research that collects what people do, by watching or measuring it (Rohrer, 2022). | | - Rohrer, C. (2022). When to use which user-experience research methods. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
- Nielsen, J. (2001). First rule of usability? Don't listen to users. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
|
|---|
| Behavioural variable | A dimension on which the people studied differ in what they do, such as how often they mark work online. Personas are built from clusters of people who sit together on several. | - R06Design methods IFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Laubheimer, P. (2020). 3 persona types: Lightweight, qualitative, and statistical. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
- Cooper, A., Reimann, R., Cronin, D., & Noessel, C. (2014). About face: The essentials of interaction design (4th ed.). Wiley.
|
|---|
| Benchmark | A public, standard test of a model's general ability. Useful for comparing models, weak evidence about a specific classroom task. | | - National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2024). Artificial intelligence risk management framework: Generative artificial intelligence profile (NIST AI 600-1). U.S. Department of Commerce. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Best Evidence Synthesis | New Zealand's synthesis on teacher professional learning, drawing on 97 studies of professional development that improved outcomes for students (Timperley et al., 2007). | | - Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and development: Best evidence synthesis iteration. Ministry of Education, New Zealand. thehub.sia.govt.nz ↗
- Timperley, H. (2008). Teacher professional learning and development (Educational Practices Series No. 18). International Academy of Education; International Bureau of Education. iaoed.org ↗
|
|---|
| Bet | A decision to spend effort on the expectation that it will change someone's behaviour in a useful way. It can lose. | | - Seiden, J. (2019). Outcomes over output: Why customer behavior is the key metric for business success. Sense & Respond Press.
- Kohavi, R., Crook, T., & Longbotham, R. (2009). Online experimentation at Microsoft [Paper presentation]. Third Workshop on Data Mining Case Studies and Practice Prize. exp-platform.com ↗
|
|---|
| Beta phase | The stage of a public digital service in which a working version is built and opened to real users, first by invitation and then publicly, while it is still being improved. | - R01Digital product managementFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Government Digital Service. (2019). Service Standard. GOV.UK. gov.uk ↗
|
|---|
| Bias audit | A test, before launch and at intervals after, of whether a model's accuracy and errors differ between groups of students, such as by sex, ethnicity, language or disability. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Baker, R. S., & Hawn, A. (2022). Algorithmic bias in education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 32(4), 1052–1092. doi ↗
- Barocas, S., Hardt, M., & Narayanan, A. (2023). Fairness and machine learning: Limitations and opportunities. MIT Press.
|
|---|
| Biometric data | Data from a person's body or behaviour that can identify them, such as a face image, fingerprint or voice print, used in some attendance, payment and proctoring systems. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - European Union. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation). Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 1–88.
- Buolamwini, J., & Gebru, T. (2018). Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 81, 77–91.
|
|---|
| Black-box monitoring | Checking a live system from the outside, as a user would, for example with an automated login. | | - Beyer, B., Jones, C., Petoff, J., & Murphy, N. R. (Eds.). (2016). Site reliability engineering: How Google runs production systems. O'Reilly Media. sre.google ↗
|
|---|
| Blameless postmortem | A review of an incident that looks for contributing causes without blaming individuals (Beyer et al., 2016). | | - Beyer, B., Jones, C., Petoff, J., & Murphy, N. R. (Eds.). (2016). Site reliability engineering: How Google runs production systems. O'Reilly Media. sre.google ↗
|
|---|
| Blameless review | A review of an incident that looks for contributing causes without blaming a person or team (Lunney & Lueder, 2016). | | - Lunney, J., & Lueder, S. (2016). Postmortem culture: Learning from failure. In B. Beyer, C. Jones, J. Petoff, & N. R. Murphy (Eds.), Site reliability engineering: How Google runs production systems. O'Reilly Media. sre.google ↗
- Beyer, B., Jones, C., Petoff, J., & Murphy, N. R. (Eds.). (2016). Site reliability engineering: How Google runs production systems. O'Reilly Media. sre.google ↗
|
|---|
| Blended learning | A course design that combines face-to-face sessions with online study, each used for what it does best. | - R21Professional learning that changes practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Blue-green deployment | Running two identical production environments and switching traffic between them, so a release can be reversed quickly (Fowler, 2010). | | - Fowler, M. (2010). Blue green deployment. martinfowler.com. martinfowler.com ↗
- Humble, J., & Farley, D. (2010). Continuous delivery: Reliable software releases through build, test, and deployment automation. Addison-Wesley. oreilly.com ↗
|
|---|
| Bodystorming | Generating and trying out ideas by acting them out physically, ideally in the place where the product will be used. | - R07Design methods IIFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Oulasvirta, A., Kurvinen, E., & Kankainen, T. (2003). Understanding contexts by being there: Case studies in bodystorming. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 7(2), 125–134. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Brainstorming | Group idea generation under four rules: go for quantity, hold back criticism, welcome unusual ideas, and build on the ideas of others. | - R03Design thinking, used honestlyFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 497–509. doi ↗
- Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative thinking. Scribner.
|
|---|
| Brainwriting | Idea generation in which people write their ideas down in silence and pass them round for others to build on, which avoids waiting for a turn to speak. | - R03Design thinking, used honestlyFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 497–509. doi ↗
- Paulus, P. B., & Yang, H.-C. (2000). Idea generation in groups: A basis for creativity in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 76–87. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Branch | A separate line of work in version control, where changes can be made and tested without affecting the main line until they are merged back in. | - R11Software development for non-engineersFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Loeliger, J., & McCullough, M. (2012). Version control with Git: Powerful tools and techniques for collaborative software development (2nd ed.). O'Reilly Media.
|
|---|
| Breach notification | The legal duty to tell the regulator, and often the people affected, about a personal data breach within a set time: 72 hours under the GDPR, three calendar days in Singapore. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - European Union. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation). Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 1–88.
- Personal Data Protection Act 2012 (2020 Rev. Ed.) (Singapore).
|
|---|
| Breaking change | A release that stops existing uses of a shared part working as before, marked by a new major version number. | | - Preston-Werner, T. (n.d.). Semantic versioning 2.0.0. Retrieved September 17, 2026, from semver.org ↗
- Government Digital Service. (n.d.-c). Versioning [GOV.UK Frontend documentation]. GitHub. Retrieved September 17, 2026, from github.com ↗
|
|---|
| Brooks's law | Adding people to a late software project makes it later, because new people must be trained and must coordinate with everyone else (Brooks, 1975). | | - Brooks, F. P., Jr. (1975). The mythical man-month: Essays on software engineering. Addison-Wesley. Anniversary edition published 1995. informit.com ↗
|
|---|
| Bug report | A report of a software fault that gives the steps to reproduce it, what was expected, what happened, and the device and version in use. | - R22Support and feedback loopsFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| Build artefact | The packaged, versioned output of a build. The pipeline creates it once and deploys that same package to every environment, so what reaches users is exactly what was tested. | - R12DevOps and continuous deliveryFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Humble, J., & Farley, D. (2010). Continuous delivery: Reliable software releases through build, test, and deployment automation. Addison-Wesley. oreilly.com ↗
|
|---|
| Build trap | Measuring success by outputs rather than outcomes (Perri, 2018). | | - Perri, M. (2018). Escaping the build trap: How effective product management creates real value. O'Reilly Media.
- Seiden, J. (2019). Outcomes over output: Why customer behavior is the key metric for business success. Sense & Respond Press.
|
|---|
| Build-measure-learn | The loop of turning an idea into something testable, measuring the response and deciding what to do next (Ries, 2011). | | - Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup: How today's entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. Crown Business. theleanstartup.com ↗
- Blank, S. (2013). Why the lean start-up changes everything. Harvard Business Review, 91(5), 63–72. hbr.org ↗
|
|---|
| Burndown chart | A chart of the work remaining in a sprint or release against time, used to see whether the team is on course to finish. | - R09Agile and Scrum in practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Cohn, M. (2005). Agile estimating and planning. Prentice Hall.
|
|---|
| Business glossary | An agreed list of an organisation's terms, such as "persistent absence" or "enrolled", each with one definition and a named owner. | - R14Data strategy and governanceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - DAMA International. (2017). DAMA-DMBOK: Data management body of knowledge (2nd ed.). Technics Publications. damadmbok.org ↗
|
|---|
| Business intelligence (BI) | The tools and practices for turning an organisation's data into reports, dashboards and queries that managers use to monitor performance and make decisions. | - R14Data strategy and governanceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - DAMA International. (2017). DAMA-DMBOK: Data management body of knowledge (2nd ed.). Technics Publications. damadmbok.org ↗
|
|---|
| Business model canvas | A one-page chart of nine blocks, including customer segments, value proposition, channels, revenue and costs, used to describe how an organisation creates and captures value and to list the assumptions behind it. | - R10Lean product developmentFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Blank, S. (2013). Why the lean start-up changes everything. Harvard Business Review, 91(5), 63–72. hbr.org ↗
- Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. Wiley.
|
|---|
| Buy-in | Real agreement, from the people who must carry out a change, that it is worth doing. It is distinct from compliance. | - R19Adoption and change in schoolsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Sharples, J., Eaton, J., & Boughelaf, J. (2024). A school's guide to implementation: Guidance report. Education Endowment Foundation. educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk ↗
- Kotter, J. P., & Whitehead, L. A. (2010). Buy-in: Saving your good idea from getting shot down. Harvard Business Review Press.
|
|---|
| C |
|---|
| Cache | A store of recently fetched or computed results kept close to where they are needed, so that repeat requests are answered faster and put less load on the system behind it. | - R11Software development for non-engineersFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Fielding, R., Nottingham, M., & Reschke, J. (Eds.). (2022). HTTP caching (RFC 9111). Internet Engineering Task Force. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Caliper Analytics | A standard that describes learning activity, what learners did, in a common form (1EdTech Consortium, n.d.-a). | | - 1EdTech Consortium. (n.d.-a). Caliper Analytics. Retrieved September 17, 2026, from 1edtech.org ↗
|
|---|
| Call to action | The line in a message that tells the reader exactly what to do next, such as a button, a link or a dated instruction. | - R20Communicating change to schoolsFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| Campbell’s law | The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it is to corruption pressures, and the more it distorts the social processes it is meant to monitor (Campbell, 1979). | | - Campbell, D. T. (1979). Assessing the impact of planned social change. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2(1), 67–90. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Canary release | Rolling a change out to a small group of users first, and widening it only if the signals hold (Sato, 2014). | | - Sato, D. (2014). Canary release. martinfowler.com. martinfowler.com ↗
- Humble, J., & Farley, D. (2010). Continuous delivery: Reliable software releases through build, test, and deployment automation. Addison-Wesley. oreilly.com ↗
|
|---|
| Canned response | A pre-written reply to a common question that support staff insert into a ticket and adapt. Also called a macro. | - R22Support and feedback loopsFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| Capacity planning | Forecasting the demand a system will face, including its predictable peaks, and making sure enough computing resource is in place, tested and paid for before that demand arrives. | - R11Software development for non-engineersFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Beyer, B., Jones, C., Petoff, J., & Murphy, N. R. (Eds.). (2016). Site reliability engineering: How Google runs production systems. O'Reilly Media. sre.google ↗
- Government Digital Service. (2017, February 6). Test your service's performance. GOV.UK Service Manual. gov.uk ↗
|
|---|
| Card sorting | A method in which participants group labelled cards in a way that makes sense to them, used to learn how users expect content to be organised and named. | - R05Evaluative researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Rohrer, C. (2022). When to use which user-experience research methods. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
- Spencer, D. (2009). Card sorting: Designing usable categories. Rosenfeld Media.
|
|---|
| Cargo-cult agile | Copying the visible rituals of agile, such as sprints and stand-ups, without shortening the feedback loop they were meant to serve. | | - Fowler, M. (2018, August 25). The state of agile software in 2018 [Keynote transcript]. martinfowler.com. martinfowler.com ↗
- Thomas, D. (2014, March 4). Agile is dead (long live agility). pragdave.me. pragdave.me ↗
|
|---|
| Cascade | The chain of people a change message passes through, from the centre to the classroom. | | - Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431. doi ↗
- Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145–170. doi ↗
- Coburn, C. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476–509. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Causal loop diagram | A diagram of the variables in a system joined by arrows marked to show whether each one pushes the next up or down, used to find its feedback loops. | - R02Service design and systems thinkingFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday/Currency.
- Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. McGraw-Hill.
|
|---|
| Central model | A model in which one team collects, stores and serves all data. It is simple to govern and often slow, because everything waits on the central team. | | - DAMA International. (2017). DAMA-DMBOK: Data management body of knowledge (2nd ed.). Technics Publications. damadmbok.org ↗
|
|---|
| Champion | A teacher or staff member who knows a tool well, helps colleagues with it and passes problems on. Also called a super-user. | | - Yuan, C. T., Bradley, E. H., & Nembhard, I. M. (2015). A mixed methods study of how clinician 'super users' influence others during the implementation of electronic health records. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 15, Article 26. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Change advisory board | A group that reviews and approves changes before they go live. Often called a CAB. | | - Forsgren, N., Smith, D., Humble, J., & Frazelle, J. (2019). Accelerate: State of DevOps 2019. DORA and Google Cloud. dora.dev ↗
- Forsgren, N., Humble, J., & Kim, G. (2018). Accelerate: The science of lean software and DevOps: Building and scaling high performing technology organizations. IT Revolution. itrevolution.com ↗
|
|---|
| Change agent | A person who works to bring about the adoption of an innovation in a group, often from outside it, on behalf of the organisation promoting the change. | - R19Adoption and change in schoolsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
|
|---|
| Change curve | A picture of how morale and performance often dip after a change is announced and recover as people accept it, adapted from Kübler-Ross's stages of grief. | - R19Adoption and change in schoolsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Kübler-Ross, E. (1969). On death and dying. Macmillan.
|
|---|
| Change fail rate | The share of deployments that need immediate intervention afterwards (DORA, 2026). | | - DORA. (2026). DORA's software delivery performance metrics. Google Cloud. dora.dev ↗
- Forsgren, N., Humble, J., & Kim, G. (2018). Accelerate: The science of lean software and DevOps: Building and scaling high performing technology organizations. IT Revolution. itrevolution.com ↗
- Harvey, N. (2026). A history of DORA's software delivery metrics. DORA. dora.dev ↗
|
|---|
| Change fatigue | Weariness and disengagement in staff who have been asked to absorb too many changes in too short a time. | - R19Adoption and change in schoolsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Bernerth, J. B., Walker, H. J., & Harris, S. G. (2011). Change fatigue: Development and initial validation of a new measure. Work & Stress, 25(4), 321–337. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Change freeze | A period in which no changes may be deployed, except agreed urgent fixes. | | - Majors, C. (2019). Friday deploy freezes are exactly like murdering puppies. charity.wtf. charity.wtf ↗
- Majors, C. (2025). On Friday deploys: Sometimes that puppy needs murdering. charity.wtf. charity.wtf ↗
|
|---|
| Change impact assessment | An analysis of which groups a change affects, in what way and how much, used to decide who needs which message, training and support. | - R20Communicating change to schoolsFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| Change lead time | The time from a change being committed to version control to it running in production (DORA, 2026). | | - DORA. (2026). DORA's software delivery performance metrics. Google Cloud. dora.dev ↗
- Forsgren, N., Humble, J., & Kim, G. (2018). Accelerate: The science of lean software and DevOps: Building and scaling high performing technology organizations. IT Revolution. itrevolution.com ↗
- Harvey, N. (2026). A history of DORA's software delivery metrics. DORA. dora.dev ↗
|
|---|
| Change management | The planned work of moving people and an organisation from one way of working to another: preparing, supporting and following up, not only announcing. | - R19Adoption and change in schoolsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. Jossey-Bass.
- Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Harvard Business School Press. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Change note | A short public record of what changed on a page or in a product, written so a reader can act on it (Government Digital Service, n.d.-a). | | |
|---|
| Changelog | A curated, dated list of the notable changes in each version of a product (Lacan, 2026). | | |
|---|
| Channel | A medium through which a user deals with a service, such as a website, an app, a phone line, a letter or a school office counter. | - R02Service design and systems thinkingFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Polaine, A., Løvlie, L., & Reason, B. (2013). Service design: From insight to implementation. Rosenfeld Media.
- Stickdorn, M., Hormess, M. E., Lawrence, A., & Schneider, J. (2018). This is service design doing: Applying service design thinking in the real world. O'Reilly Media.
|
|---|
| Chaos engineering | Deliberately injecting failures, such as shutting down a server, into a system under controlled conditions to check that it copes as designed before a real failure tests it. | - R12DevOps and continuous deliveryFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Basiri, A., Behnam, N., de Rooij, R., Hochstein, L., Kosewski, L., Reynolds, J., & Rosenthal, C. (2016). Chaos engineering. IEEE Software, 33(3), 35–41. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) | The 1998 United States law that requires online services directed at children under 13, or knowingly collecting their data, to obtain verifiable parental consent first. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998, 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506.
- Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 312.
|
|---|
| Children's rights by design | Designing digital products so that they respect children's rights to privacy, protection, participation, play and education from the outset. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2021). General comment No. 25 (2021) on children's rights in relation to the digital environment (CRC/C/GC/25). United Nations.
- United Nations. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. United Nations.
|
|---|
| Chunking | Grouping separate items into a few meaningful units, as with the blocks of a phone number, so that more can be held in working memory. | - R08UX foundations and design systemsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97. doi ↗
- Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 87–114. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Churn rate | The share of users or customers who stop using a product in a given period. Its complement is the retention rate. | - R01Digital product managementFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Croll, A., & Yoskovitz, B. (2013). Lean analytics: Use data to build a better startup faster. O'Reilly Media.
|
|---|
| Circular | An official notice sent by a ministry or authority to all the schools or bodies it oversees, usually numbered and dated. | - R20Communicating change to schoolsFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| Classroom floor | The minimum standard of learning, safety and consent that any test reaching students must meet. A term used in this guide. | | - British Educational Research Association. (2024). Ethical guidelines for educational research (5th ed.). bera.ac.uk ↗
|
|---|
| Classroom orchestration | A teacher's real-time management of several activities, groups and tools in a lesson. Teacher dashboards are often designed to support it. | - R15Learning analyticsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Dillenbourg, P. (2013). Design for classroom orchestration. Computers & Education, 69, 485–492. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Clickable prototype | Linked screens that respond to taps or clicks but have no working logic behind them. | | - Houde, S., & Hill, C. (1997). What do prototypes prototype? In M. Helander, T. K. Landauer, & P. Prabhu (Eds.), Handbook of human-computer interaction (2nd ed., pp. 367–381). Elsevier. doi ↗
- Rudd, J., Stern, K., & Isensee, S. (1996). Low vs. high-fidelity prototyping debate. Interactions, 3(1), 76–85. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Client–server model | The arrangement behind most web software: a client, such as a browser or app, sends requests, and a server holding the shared data and rules sends back responses. | - R11Software development for non-engineersFrom the field · not in the guide
| - MDN Web Docs. (n.d.). How the web works. Mozilla. Retrieved September 17, 2026, from developer.mozilla.org ↗
- Fielding, R. T., & Taylor, R. N. (2002). Principled design of the modern Web architecture. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, 2(2), 115–150. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Closed question | A survey question answered by choosing from a fixed set of options. It is easy to count, but it can only return the answers its writer thought of. | - R05Evaluative researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Pew Research Center. (2021). Writing survey questions. pewresearch.org ↗
- Schuman, H., & Presser, S. (1981). Questions and answers in attitude surveys: Experiments on question form, wording, and context. Academic Press. archive.org ↗
|
|---|
| Closing the loop | Making sure analytics leads to an action that reaches learners (Clow, 2012). R22 Telling the person who reported a problem what happened to it, including when the answer is "not yet". | | - Clow, D. (2012). The learning analytics cycle: Closing the loop effectively. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 134–138). ACM. doi ↗
- Arizona State University. (2011). New customer-rage study: Fewer consumers satisfied than ever before [News release]. ASU News. news.asu.edu ↗
- Herodotou, C., Rienties, B., Boroowa, A., Zdrahal, Z., & Hlosta, M. (2019). A large-scale implementation of predictive learning analytics in higher education: The teachers’ role and perspective. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67, 1273–1306. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Cloud computing | Rented computing resources that can be added or released quickly with little effort (Mell & Grance, 2011). | | - Mell, P., & Grance, T. (2011). The NIST definition of cloud computing (NIST Special Publication 800-145). National Institute of Standards and Technology. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Cluster | A group whose members share an experience and tend to resemble each other: a class, a teacher's classes or a school. | | - Donner, A., & Klar, N. (2000). Design and analysis of cluster randomization trials in health research. Arnold. wiley.com ↗
- Hedges, L. V., & Hedberg, E. C. (2007). Intraclass correlation values for planning group-randomized trials in education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(1), 60–87. doi ↗
- Education Endowment Foundation. (2022). Statistical analysis guidance for EEF evaluations. d2tic4wvo1iusb.cloudfront.net ↗
|
|---|
| Cluster randomised trial | A trial that randomises whole groups, such as classes or schools, rather than individual pupils. It needs a larger sample than an individually randomised trial of the same precision. | - R13Experimentation and product analyticsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Donner, A., & Klar, N. (2000). Design and analysis of cluster randomization trials in health research. Arnold. wiley.com ↗
- Education Endowment Foundation. (2022). Statistical analysis guidance for EEF evaluations. d2tic4wvo1iusb.cloudfront.net ↗
|
|---|
| Co-design | Designers and people not trained in design working together in the design process (Sanders & Stappers, 2008). | | - Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18. doi ↗
- Penuel, W. R., Roschelle, J., & Shechtman, N. (2007). Designing formative assessment software with teachers: An analysis of the co-design process. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 2(1), 51–74. doi ↗
- Druin, A. (2002). The role of children in the design of new technology. Behaviour & Information Technology, 21(1), 1–25. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Co-evolution of problem and solution | The observation that designers do not fix the problem first and then solve it: their understanding of the problem and their ideas for a solution develop together, each reshaping the other. | - R03Design thinking, used honestlyFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Dorst, K. (2011). The core of 'design thinking' and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521–532. doi ↗
- Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Coaching | Repeated cycles of observation, feedback and planning with an individual teacher or a small group. | | - Kraft, M. A., Blazar, D., & Hogan, D. (2018). The effect of teacher coaching on instruction and achievement: A meta-analysis of the causal evidence. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 547–588. doi ↗
- Showers, B., & Joyce, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 12–16. ascd.org ↗
- Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. books.google.com ↗
|
|---|
| Code | A short label attached to a passage of data, used to find and compare similar passages. | | - Saldaña, J. (2025). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (5th ed.). SAGE.
- Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Code review | The reading of one developer's changes by another before they are merged, to find defects, improve the code and spread knowledge of it across the team. | - R11Software development for non-engineersFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Bacchelli, A., & Bird, C. (2013). Expectations, outcomes, and challenges of modern code review. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 712–721). IEEE. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Codebook | The list of codes used in an analysis, each with a definition, rules for when it applies and an example, kept so that coding stays consistent across people and time. | - R06Design methods IFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Saldaña, J. (2025). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (5th ed.). SAGE.
|
|---|
| Coded prototype | Working software built to answer a question, not to production standards. | | - Government Digital Service. (2016). Making prototypes. GOV.UK Service Manual. gov.uk ↗
- Rudd, J., Stern, K., & Isensee, S. (1996). Low vs. high-fidelity prototyping debate. Interactions, 3(1), 76–85. doi ↗
- Walker, M., Takayama, L., & Landay, J. A. (2002). High-fidelity or low-fidelity, paper or computer? Choosing attributes when testing web prototypes. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 46(5), 661–665. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Coding reliability | An approach to thematic analysis that uses a fixed codebook and measures agreement between coders (Braun & Clarke, 2021). | | - Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. doi ↗
- Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. SAGE.
|
|---|
| Cognitive interview | A survey pretesting method in which a few respondents answer draft questions while explaining how they understood them and how they arrived at each answer. | - R05Evaluative researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Willis, G. B. (2005). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. SAGE. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Cognitive load | The demand a task places on working memory (Sweller, 1988). | | - Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. doi ↗
- Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296. doi ↗
- Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261–292. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Cognitive offloading | Using an action or tool to reduce the thinking a task demands (Risko & Gilbert, 2016). | | - Risko, E. F., & Gilbert, S. J. (2016). Cognitive offloading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9), 676–688. doi ↗
- Cash, T. N., Kelly, M. O., Macnamara, B. N., & Risko, E. F. (2026). Is AI making us stupid? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 30(8), 673–675. doi ↗
- Gerlich, M. (2025). AI tools in society: Impacts on cognitive offloading and the future of critical thinking. Societies, 15(1), Article 6. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Cognitive walkthrough | An inspection method in which reviewers step through a task as a first-time user would, asking at each step whether that user would know what to do and see that it had worked. | - R05Evaluative researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Wharton, C., Rieman, J., Lewis, C., & Polson, P. (1994). The cognitive walkthrough method: A practitioner's guide. In J. Nielsen & R. L. Mack (Eds.), Usability inspection methods (pp. 105–140). Wiley.
|
|---|
| Cohen's d | A standardised effect size that divides the difference between groups by the spread, so studies that use different tests can be compared (Cohen, 1988). | | - Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Kraft, M. A. (2020). Interpreting effect sizes of education interventions. Educational Researcher, 49(4), 241–253. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Cohen's kappa | A measure of how far two raters agree when sorting items into categories, corrected for the agreement expected by chance. | - R18Basic statistics for educational technologistsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46. doi ↗
- Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Coherence | Consistency between professional learning and the teacher's curriculum, knowledge, students and wider policy (Desimone, 2009). | | - Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers' professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. doi ↗
- Desimone, L. M., & Garet, M. S. (2015). Best practices in teachers' professional development in the United States. Psychology, Society, & Education, 7(3), 252–263. repositorio.ual.es ↗
- Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Coherence principle | People learn better when extraneous material is excluded rather than included (Mayer, 2024). | | - Mayer, R. E. (2024). The past, present, and future of the cognitive theory of multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review, 36(1), Article 8. doi ↗
- Mayer, R. E. (2021). Multimedia learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. doi ↗
- Sundararajan, N., & Adesope, O. (2020). Keep it coherent: A meta-analysis of the seductive details effect. Educational Psychology Review, 32(3), 707–734. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Cohort analysis | Analysis that groups users by a shared starting point, such as the week they joined, and follows each group over time, so that changes in behaviour are not hidden by a changing user mix. | - R13Experimentation and product analyticsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Croll, A., & Yoskovitz, B. (2013). Lean analytics: Use data to build a better startup faster. O'Reilly Media.
|
|---|
| Colour contrast ratio | A measure from 1:1 to 21:1 of the difference in brightness between text and its background. WCAG level AA asks for at least 4.5:1 for normal-sized text. | - R08UX foundations and design systemsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - World Wide Web Consortium. (2023). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 (W3C Recommendation). w3.org ↗
|
|---|
| Commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software | Ready-made software bought or licensed from a supplier and configured for use, as opposed to software built to order. | - R01Digital product managementFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Hopson, M., McFadden, V., Refoy, R., & Rouault, A. (Eds.). (2020). De-risking government technology: Federal agency field guide. 18F, U.S. General Services Administration. guides.18f.gov ↗
|
|---|
| Communications plan | A schedule of who needs to be told what, by whom, through which channel and when, agreed before a change is announced. | - R20Communicating change to schoolsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Project Management Institute. (2017). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide) (6th ed.). Project Management Institute.
|
|---|
| Compatibility | The degree to which an innovation is viewed as consistent with the current values, previous experiences and needs of prospective adopters. Late adopters weigh it heavily (Rogers, 2003). | | - Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
|
|---|
| Complaint iceberg | The pattern in which about half of people with a problem tell a front-line person and only 1–5% escalate to head office, so head office hears from the tip (Goodman, 1999). | | - Goodman, J. (1999). Basic facts on customer complaint behavior and the impact of service on the bottom line. Competitive Advantage, June, 1–5. newtoncomputing.com ↗
|
|---|
| Complier average causal effect (CACE) | An estimate of the effect of an intervention on those who took it up as intended, reported alongside the intention-to-treat estimate. | - R13Experimentation and product analyticsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Education Endowment Foundation. (2022). Statistical analysis guidance for EEF evaluations. d2tic4wvo1iusb.cloudfront.net ↗
- Angrist, J. D., Imbens, G. W., & Rubin, D. B. (1996). Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91(434), 444–455. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Component | A reusable interface part, such as a button or text field, with agreed behaviour and code. | | |
|---|
| Computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS) | Software for storing, coding, searching and retrieving qualitative data. It organises the analyst's work and does not do the analysis. | - R06Design methods IFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Saldaña, J. (2025). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (5th ed.). SAGE.
|
|---|
| Concerns-Based Adoption Model | A model developed at the University of Texas at Austin that describes the stages of concern and levels of use a person moves through as they meet a change (Hall & Hord, 2014). | | - Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2014). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes (4th ed.). Pearson. pearson.com ↗
- American Institutes for Research. (n.d.). Stages of concern: Concerns-Based Adoption Model. Retrieved September 17, 2026, from air.org ↗
|
|---|
| Concierge test | A test in which people openly deliver by hand what a product would later automate. | | - Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup: How today's entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. Crown Business. theleanstartup.com ↗
- Bland, D. J., & Osterwalder, A. (2019). Testing business ideas: A field guide for rapid experimentation. Wiley. books.google.com ↗
|
|---|
| Cone of uncertainty | The range within which a skilled estimate can be wrong, widest at the start of a project (McConnell, 2006). | | - McConnell, S. (2006). Software estimation: Demystifying the black art. Microsoft Press.
- Boehm, B. W. (1981). Software engineering economics. Prentice-Hall.
|
|---|
| Confabulation | Confident but false content produced by a generative model, often called hallucination (National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2024). | | - National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2024). Artificial intelligence risk management framework: Generative artificial intelligence profile (NIST AI 600-1). U.S. Department of Commerce. doi ↗
- Ji, Z., Lee, N., Frieske, R., Yu, T., Su, D., Xu, Y., Ishii, E., Bang, Y. J., Madotto, A., & Fung, P. (2023). Survey of hallucination in natural language generation. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(12), Article 248. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Confidence interval | A range of plausible values for a true figure, built by a method that captures it a stated share of the time. | | - Cumming, G. (2014). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science, 25(1), 7–29. doi ↗
- Greenland, S., Senn, S. J., Rothman, K. J., Carlin, J. B., Poole, C., Goodman, S. N., & Altman, D. G. (2016). Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: A guide to misinterpretations. European Journal of Epidemiology, 31(4), 337–350. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Confidentiality, integrity and availability (CIA triad) | The three aims of information security: data is seen only by those allowed, is not altered without authority, and is there when needed. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2004). Standards for security categorization of federal information and information systems (FIPS PUB 199). National Institute of Standards and Technology.
- Anderson, R. (2020). Security engineering: A guide to building dependable distributed systems (3rd ed.). Wiley. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Configuration drift | The gradual divergence of servers or environments that are meant to be identical, caused by manual, unrecorded changes. It makes releases behave differently from one environment to the next. | - R12DevOps and continuous deliveryFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Morris, K. (2016). Infrastructure as code: Managing servers in the cloud. O'Reilly Media.
|
|---|
| Configuration management | Keeping everything needed to build and run a system, including code, settings, scripts and environment definitions, identified, versioned and reproducible, so that any release can be recreated exactly. | - R12DevOps and continuous deliveryFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Humble, J., & Farley, D. (2010). Continuous delivery: Reliable software releases through build, test, and deployment automation. Addison-Wesley. oreilly.com ↗
|
|---|
| Confirmation bias | Seeking or reading evidence in ways that favour a belief already held (Nickerson, 1998). | | - Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220. doi ↗
- Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12(3), 129–140. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Confounder | A factor that influences both a supposed cause and its outcome, creating a misleading association. | | - Pearl, J., & Mackenzie, D. (2018). The book of why: The new science of cause and effect. Basic Books.
- Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist's companion. Princeton University Press.
|
|---|
| Consent | Informed, voluntary agreement to take part, which can be withdrawn at any time. | | - British Educational Research Association. (2024). Ethical guidelines for educational research (5th ed.). bera.ac.uk ↗
- Personal Data Protection Commission. (2024). Advisory guidelines on the PDPA for children's personal data in the digital environment. pdpc.gov.sg ↗
|
|---|
| Contact rate | The number of support contacts divided by the number of active users or accounts in the same period, used to tell growth in use from growth in problems. | - R22Support and feedback loopsFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| Container | The screens, navigation and controls that hold a learning product's content. | | |
|---|
| Container orchestration | Software that starts, places, scales, restarts and updates containers across a group of servers automatically, to match a declared desired state. Kubernetes is the most widely used. | - R12DevOps and continuous deliveryFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Burns, B., Grant, B., Oppenheimer, D., Brewer, E., & Wilkes, J. (2016). Borg, Omega, and Kubernetes. Communications of the ACM, 59(5), 50–57. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Contamination | Spillover of one version's effects into the other group, for example through shared answers or a shared lesson. | | - Donner, A., & Klar, N. (2000). Design and analysis of cluster randomization trials in health research. Arnold. wiley.com ↗
- Ritter, S., Murphy, A., Fancsali, S. E., Fitkariwala, V., Patel, N., & Lomas, J. D. (2020). UpGrade: An open source tool to support A/B testing in educational software [Paper presentation]. Workshop on Educational A/B Testing at Scale, Learning @ Scale 2020. upgradeplatform.org ↗
|
|---|
| Content analysis | A systematic method that assigns passages of text or other material to defined categories and often counts them, so that inferences can be checked and repeated by others. | - R06Design methods IFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). SAGE. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Content design | Meeting a user need with the right content, in the right format and place (Winters, 2019). R20 The practice of helping people quickly find out what they need to know or do, a test of the reader's position after the message, not of the sender's activity before it (Government Digital Service, n.d.-e). | | |
|---|
| Content prototype | A real lesson, task or worked example, tried with learners, to test the content itself. | | - Tripp, S. D., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 31–44. doi ↗
- Richards, S. (2017). Content design. Content Design London. contentdesign.london ↗
|
|---|
| Context of use | The users, goals, tasks, equipment and environment in which a product is used (International Organization for Standardization, 2018). | | - International Organization for Standardization. (2018). Ergonomics of human-system interaction — Part 11: Usability: Definitions and concepts (ISO Standard No. 9241-11:2018). iso.org ↗
|
|---|
| Context window | The most text, counted in tokens, that a model can take into account at once, including the prompt, any supplied documents and its own reply. | - R16AI in learning productsFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| Context-specific repetition | Practising a new behaviour repeatedly in the setting where it will be used, so it becomes a habit. | | - Sims, S., Fletcher-Wood, H., O'Mara-Eves, A., Cottingham, S., Stansfield, C., Van Herwegen, J., & Anders, J. (2021). What are the characteristics of effective teacher professional development? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Education Endowment Foundation. files.eric.ed.gov ↗
|
|---|
| Contextual inquiry | Observation and interviewing of people doing their work, where they usually do it (Beyer & Holtzblatt, 1998). | | - Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual design: Defining customer-centered systems. Morgan Kaufmann. archive.org ↗
- Holtzblatt, K., & Beyer, H. R. (2013). Contextual design. In M. Soegaard & R. F. Dam (Eds.), The encyclopedia of human-computer interaction (2nd ed.). Interaction Design Foundation. ixdf.org ↗
- Flaherty, K. (2020). Contextual inquiry: Inspire design by observing and interviewing users in their context. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
|
|---|
| Contextual integrity | The view that privacy is kept when information flows according to the norms of the setting it was shared in, and breached when it moves to a setting with other norms. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Nissenbaum, H. (2010). Privacy in context: Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford University Press. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Continuous delivery | Building software so that it can be released to production at any time (Fowler, 2013). | | - Humble, J., & Farley, D. (2010). Continuous delivery: Reliable software releases through build, test, and deployment automation. Addison-Wesley. oreilly.com ↗
- Fowler, M. (2013). Continuous delivery. martinfowler.com. martinfowler.com ↗
- Humble, J. (n.d.). What is continuous delivery? Continuous Delivery. Retrieved September 17, 2026, from continuousdelivery.com ↗
|
|---|
| Continuous deployment | Sending every change that passes the pipeline to production automatically, with no human release decision. | | - Fowler, M. (2013). Continuous delivery. martinfowler.com. martinfowler.com ↗
- Humble, J., & Farley, D. (2010). Continuous delivery: Reliable software releases through build, test, and deployment automation. Addison-Wesley. oreilly.com ↗
|
|---|
| Continuous integration | Merging every developer's work into the main line at least daily, with each merge built and tested automatically (Fowler, 2024). | | - Fowler, M. (2024). Continuous integration. martinfowler.com. (Original work published 2000) martinfowler.com ↗
- Humble, J., & Farley, D. (2010). Continuous delivery: Reliable software releases through build, test, and deployment automation. Addison-Wesley. oreilly.com ↗
|
|---|
| Contribution model | The published route by which teams propose, build and add new parts to a design system. | | - Government Digital Service. (n.d.-a). Contribution criteria. GOV.UK Design System. Retrieved September 17, 2026, from design-system.service.gov.uk ↗
- Government Digital Service. (n.d.-b). Community. GOV.UK Design System. Retrieved September 17, 2026, from design-system.service.gov.uk ↗
- Noakes, A., & Paul, T. (2017). Building the GOV.UK Design System. Government Digital Service blog. gds.blog.gov.uk ↗
|
|---|
| Control group | A group like the one that got the change, in the same weeks, that did not get it. It shows how much of a rise would have happened anyway. | | - Kohavi, R., Tang, D., & Xu, Y. (2020). Trustworthy online controlled experiments: A practical guide to A/B testing. Cambridge University Press. doi ↗
- What Works Clearinghouse. (2022). What Works Clearinghouse procedures and standards handbook, version 5.0 (WWC 2022008). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. ies.ed.gov ↗
|
|---|
| Convergent thinking | Narrowing many options down to a focused choice. | | - Design Council. (n.d.-a). Framework for innovation. Retrieved September 17, 2026, from designcouncil.org.uk ↗
- Design Council. (2007). Eleven lessons: Managing design in eleven global brands. A study of the design process. idi-design.ie ↗
|
|---|
| Conway's law | The observation that a system's structure comes to mirror the communication structure of the organisation that built it: three contracted teams tend to produce a system in three parts. | - R11Software development for non-engineersFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Brooks, F. P., Jr. (1975). The mythical man-month: Essays on software engineering. Addison-Wesley. Anniversary edition published 1995. informit.com ↗
- Conway, M. E. (1968). How do committees invent? Datamation, 14(4), 28–31.
- Skelton, M., & Pais, M. (2019). Team topologies: Organizing business and technology teams for fast flow. IT Revolution Press.
|
|---|
| Core components | The parts of an approach that must stay the same for it to work; also called active ingredients (Sharples et al., 2024). | | - Sharples, J., Eaton, J., & Boughelaf, J. (2024). A school's guide to implementation: Guidance report. Education Endowment Foundation. educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk ↗
- Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature (FMHI Publication No. 231). University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, National Implementation Research Network.
|
|---|
| Core features of effective professional development | Five features set out by Desimone: content focus, active learning, coherence, sustained duration and collective participation (Desimone, 2009). | | - Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers' professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. doi ↗
- Desimone, L. M., & Garet, M. S. (2015). Best practices in teachers' professional development in the United States. Psychology, Society, & Education, 7(3), 252–263. repositorio.ual.es ↗
- Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Correlation coefficient | A number from −1 to +1 that shows how closely two variables move together in a straight line. Usually written r, it says nothing about what causes what. | - R18Basic statistics for educational technologistsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Spiegelhalter, D. (2019). The art of statistics: Learning from data. Pelican.
- Rodgers, J. L., & Nicewander, W. A. (1988). Thirteen ways to look at the correlation coefficient. The American Statistician, 42(1), 59–66. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Cost of delay | What it costs, per unit of time, to have a piece of work not yet done. R10 What it costs to have a result or a feature later rather than sooner (Reinertsen, 2009). | | - Reinertsen, D. G. (2009). The principles of product development flow: Second generation lean product development. Celeritas Publishing. lpd2.com ↗
- Arnold, J. (n.d.). Cost of delay divided by duration. Black Swan Farming. blackswanfarming.com ↗
- Scaled Agile, Inc. (n.d.). WSJF. SAFe Framework. framework.scaledagile.com ↗
|
|---|
| Counterfactual | What would have happened to the same people without the change. Never observed; estimated by a control group. R18 What would have happened without the intervention. Never observed directly. | | - Kohavi, R., Tang, D., & Xu, Y. (2020). Trustworthy online controlled experiments: A practical guide to A/B testing. Cambridge University Press. doi ↗
- Pearl, J., & Mackenzie, D. (2018). The book of why: The new science of cause and effect. Basic Books.
- Rubin, D. B. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(5), 688–701. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Course Signals | Purdue’s early-warning system, which gave students a red, yellow or green signal based on performance, effort and background. Its widely cited retention gain was a correlation, not an established effect (Arnold and Pistilli, 2012). | | - Arnold, K. E., & Pistilli, M. D. (2012). Course Signals at Purdue: Using learning analytics to increase student success. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 267–270). ACM. doi ↗
- Caulfield, M. (2013). Why the Course Signals math does not add up. Hapgood. hapgood.us ↗
- Clow, D. (2013). Looking harder at Course Signals. Doug Clow’s Imaginatively-Titled Blog. dougclow.org ↗
|
|---|
| Crazy Eights | A sketching exercise in which each person folds a sheet into eight panels and draws eight variations of an idea in eight minutes. | - R07Design methods IIFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Knapp, J., Zeratsky, J., & Kowitz, B. (2016). Sprint: How to solve big problems and test new ideas in just five days. Simon & Schuster.
|
|---|
| Creative confidence | The belief that one can come up with new ideas and the willingness to act on them, treated as something that can be built through practice. | - R03Design thinking, used honestlyFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Kelley, T., & Kelley, D. (2013). Creative confidence: Unleashing the creative potential within us all. Crown Business.
|
|---|
| Critical incident | A specific, observable occasion that a participant can describe in detail (Flanagan, 1954). | | - Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327–358. doi ↗
- Butterfield, L. D., Borgen, W. A., Amundson, N. E., & Maglio, A.-S. T. (2005). Fifty years of the critical incident technique: 1954–2004 and beyond. Qualitative Research, 5(4), 475–497. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Critical Response Process | A four-step critique protocol that puts the maker's questions before responders' opinions (Lerman, n.d.). | | - Lerman, L. (n.d.). Critical Response Process. Liz Lerman. Retrieved September 18, 2026, from lizlerman.com ↗
- Lerman, L., & Borstel, J. (2003). Liz Lerman's Critical Response Process: A method for getting useful feedback on anything you make, from dance to dessert. Liz Lerman Dance Exchange.
|
|---|
| Critique | Analysis of whether a design is expected to achieve its goals (Connor, 2016). | | - Connor, A., & Irizarry, A. (2015). Discussing design: Improving communication and collaboration through critique. O'Reilly Media. oreilly.com ↗
- Connor, A. (2016). 3 kinds of feedback. Discussing Design, Medium. medium.com ↗
|
|---|
| Cronbach's alpha | A figure from 0 to 1 showing how consistently the items in a test or questionnaire measure the same thing. Values of about 0.7 and above are usually accepted. | - R18Basic statistics for educational technologistsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. doi ↗
- Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
|
|---|
| Cross-border data transfer | Sending personal data to, or allowing access to it from, another country. Many laws permit this only if the data stays comparably protected, which affects where a vendor may host. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - European Union. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation). Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 1–88.
- Personal Data Protection Act 2012 (2020 Rev. Ed.) (Singapore).
|
|---|
| Cross-functional team | A team whose members together hold all the skills needed to turn a backlog item into working product, without handing work to another team. | - R09Agile and Scrum in practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (2020). The Scrum Guide: The definitive guide to Scrum: The rules of the game. scrumguides.org ↗
|
|---|
| Cultural probe | A kit of open, playful tasks, such as postcards, maps and a camera, given to people to complete on their own and return, to inspire designers with glimpses of their lives. | - R03Design thinking, used honestlyFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Gaver, B., Dunne, T., & Pacenti, E. (1999). Design: Cultural probes. Interactions, 6(1), 21–29. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Cumulative flow diagram | A stacked chart of how many work items sit in each stage over time, used to spot bottlenecks and growing work in progress. | - R09Agile and Scrum in practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Anderson, D. J. (2010). Kanban: Successful evolutionary change for your technology business. Blue Hole Press. books.google.com ↗
- Reinertsen, D. G. (2009). The principles of product development flow: Second generation lean product development. Celeritas Publishing. lpd2.com ↗
|
|---|
| CUPED | A variance reduction method that adjusts each user's outcome using data from before the experiment, so that smaller effects can be detected with the same sample. | - R13Experimentation and product analyticsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Kohavi, R., Tang, D., & Xu, Y. (2020). Trustworthy online controlled experiments: A practical guide to A/B testing. Cambridge University Press. doi ↗
- Deng, A., Xu, Y., Kohavi, R., & Walker, T. (2013). Improving the sensitivity of online controlled experiments by utilizing pre-experiment data. In Proceedings of the Sixth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (pp. 123–132). ACM. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Current-state and future-state maps | A current-state map shows an experience as research found it. A future-state map shows the experience the team intends to create. | - R06Design methods IFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Gibbons, S. (2018). Journey mapping 101. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
- Kalbach, J. (2020). Mapping experiences: A complete guide to customer alignment through journeys, blueprints, and diagrams (2nd ed.). O'Reilly Media. openlibrary.org ↗
|
|---|
| Curse of knowledge | The difficulty people have in setting aside what they know when judging what others know (Camerer et al., 1989). | | - Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G., & Weber, M. (1989). The curse of knowledge in economic settings: An experimental analysis. Journal of Political Economy, 97(5), 1232–1254. doi ↗
- Newton, E. (1990). Overconfidence in the communication of intent: Heard and unheard melodies [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Stanford University.
- Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2007). Made to stick: Why some ideas survive and others die. Random House. heathbrothers.com ↗
|
|---|
| Custodian | The person or team that runs the systems a dataset is stored in, including security, backup and deletion. | | - DAMA International. (2017). DAMA-DMBOK: Data management body of knowledge (2nd ed.). Technics Publications. damadmbok.org ↗
- Privacy Technical Assistance Center. (2015). Data governance and stewardship (Rev. ed.). U.S. Department of Education. studentprivacy.ed.gov ↗
|
|---|
| Customer development | Testing a business idea's hypotheses with potential users and buyers before building at scale (Blank, 2013). | | - Blank, S. (2013). Why the lean start-up changes everything. Harvard Business Review, 91(5), 63–72. hbr.org ↗
- Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup: How today's entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. Crown Business. theleanstartup.com ↗
|
|---|
| Customer effort | How hard a person has to work to get a problem solved, including repeat contacts and channel switches (Dixon et al., 2010). | | - Dixon, M., Freeman, K., & Toman, N. (2010). Stop trying to delight your customers. Harvard Business Review, 88(7/8). hbr.org ↗
- Dixon, M., Toman, N., & DeLisi, R. (2013). The effortless experience: Conquering the new battleground for customer loyalty. Portfolio/Penguin.
|
|---|
| Customer satisfaction score (CSAT) | The share of users who rate a support interaction as satisfactory, usually from a one-question survey sent when the ticket closes. | - R22Support and feedback loopsFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| Cycle time | The time a work item takes from the moment work starts on it to the moment it is finished. | - R09Agile and Scrum in practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Anderson, D. J. (2010). Kanban: Successful evolutionary change for your technology business. Blue Hole Press. books.google.com ↗
- Reinertsen, D. G. (2009). The principles of product development flow: Second generation lean product development. Celeritas Publishing. lpd2.com ↗
|
|---|
| Cynefin framework | A distinction between simple contexts, where leaders sense, categorise and respond, complicated ones, where they analyse with expert help, and complex ones, where they probe, then sense and respond (Snowden & Boone, 2007). | | - Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007). A leader's framework for decision making. Harvard Business Review, 85(11), 68–76. hbr.org ↗
|
|---|
| D |
|---|
| Daily Scrum | A 15-minute daily meeting at which a Scrum team's developers inspect progress towards the Sprint Goal and plan the next day's work. Many teams call it the stand-up. | - R09Agile and Scrum in practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (2020). The Scrum Guide: The definitive guide to Scrum: The rules of the game. scrumguides.org ↗
|
|---|
| Dark data | Stored data whose value is unknown. In a 2016 survey, organisations described 52% of what they stored this way, and another 33% as redundant, obsolete or trivial (Veritas Technologies, 2016). | | - Veritas Technologies. (2016). Veritas Global Databerg Report finds 85% of stored data is either dark, or redundant, obsolete, or trivial (ROT) [Press release]. veritas.com ↗
|
|---|
| Dark launch | Running new code in production for real users without them being able to tell (Fowler, 2020). | | |
|---|
| Dark pattern | An interface design that steers people into choices they would not otherwise make, such as a pre-ticked consent box or a hidden opt-out. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Gray, C. M., Kou, Y., Battles, B., Hoggatt, J., & Toombs, A. L. (2018). The dark (patterns) side of UX design. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Paper 534). ACM. doi ↗
- Mathur, A., Acar, G., Friedman, M. J., Lucherini, E., Mayer, J., Chetty, M., & Narayanan, A. (2019). Dark patterns at scale: Findings from a crawl of 11K shopping websites. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW), Article 81. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Dashboard | A screen that summarises data for a teacher, a leader or a student. | | - Jivet, I., Scheffel, M., Specht, M., & Drachsler, H. (2018). License to evaluate: Preparing learning analytics dashboards for educational practice. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 31–40). ACM. doi ↗
- Clow, D. (2012). The learning analytics cycle: Closing the loop effectively. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 134–138). ACM. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Data catalogue | A searchable inventory of an organisation's datasets, recording what each holds, where it is stored, who owns it and how to request access. | - R14Data strategy and governanceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - DAMA International. (2017). DAMA-DMBOK: Data management body of knowledge (2nd ed.). Technics Publications. damadmbok.org ↗
|
|---|
| Data cleansing | Correcting or removing data that is wrong, incomplete, duplicated or badly formatted. It treats the symptom; fixing the point of entry treats the cause. | - R14Data strategy and governanceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - DAMA International. (2017). DAMA-DMBOK: Data management body of knowledge (2nd ed.). Technics Publications. damadmbok.org ↗
|
|---|
| Data controller and data processor | The controller decides why and how personal data is processed; the processor handles it on the controller's behalf. A school is usually the controller and its edtech vendor the processor. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - European Union. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation). Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 1–88.
- Personal Data Protection Act 2012 (2020 Rev. Ed.) (Singapore).
|
|---|
| Data dictionary | A document listing each field in a dataset with its name, meaning, format, allowed values and source, so that everyone reads the data the same way. | - R14Data strategy and governanceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - DAMA International. (2017). DAMA-DMBOK: Data management body of knowledge (2nd ed.). Technics Publications. damadmbok.org ↗
|
|---|
| Data governance | Policies and procedures covering data across its life, "from acquisition to use to disposal" (Privacy Technical Assistance Center, 2015). | | - Privacy Technical Assistance Center. (2015). Data governance and stewardship (Rev. ed.). U.S. Department of Education. studentprivacy.ed.gov ↗
- DAMA International. (2017). DAMA-DMBOK: Data management body of knowledge (2nd ed.). Technics Publications. damadmbok.org ↗
- OECD. (2019). The path to becoming a data-driven public sector. OECD Publishing. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Data governance council | The cross-department group that sets data policy, resolves disputes between owners and approves standards. Also called a data governance committee or board. | - R14Data strategy and governanceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Privacy Technical Assistance Center. (2015). Data governance and stewardship (Rev. ed.). U.S. Department of Education. studentprivacy.ed.gov ↗
- DAMA International. (2017). DAMA-DMBOK: Data management body of knowledge (2nd ed.). Technics Publications. damadmbok.org ↗
|
|---|
| Data lake | A store that holds large volumes of data in its raw, original form, structured or not, leaving it to be organised when it is used. | - R14Data strategy and governanceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - DAMA International. (2017). DAMA-DMBOK: Data management body of knowledge (2nd ed.). Technics Publications. damadmbok.org ↗
- Dehghani, Z. (2019). How to move beyond a monolithic data lake to a distributed data mesh. martinfowler.com. martinfowler.com ↗
|
|---|
| Data lifecycle | The stages a dataset passes through, from planning and collection, through storage, use and sharing, to archiving or deletion. | - R14Data strategy and governanceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - DAMA International. (2017). DAMA-DMBOK: Data management body of knowledge (2nd ed.). Technics Publications. damadmbok.org ↗
- Privacy Technical Assistance Center. (2015). Data governance and stewardship (Rev. ed.). U.S. Department of Education. studentprivacy.ed.gov ↗
|
|---|
| Data literacy | The ability to read, question, interpret and act on data. For educators, it means turning data into teaching decisions. | - R14Data strategy and governanceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Mandinach, E. B., & Gummer, E. S. (2016). Data literacy for educators: Making it count in teacher preparation and practice. Teachers College Press.
|
|---|
| Data maturity assessment | A structured review that rates an organisation's data management practices against defined levels, to show where it stands and what to improve first. | - R14Data strategy and governanceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - DAMA International. (2017). DAMA-DMBOK: Data management body of knowledge (2nd ed.). Technics Publications. damadmbok.org ↗
|
|---|
| Data mesh | A model in which domain teams own their data and serve it to others as a product, on a shared platform and under federated rules (Dehghani, 2022). | | - Dehghani, Z. (2019). How to move beyond a monolithic data lake to a distributed data mesh. martinfowler.com. martinfowler.com ↗
- Dehghani, Z. (2022). Data mesh: Delivering data-driven value at scale. O'Reilly Media.
|
|---|
| Data minimisation | Collecting only the personal data that is adequate, relevant and necessary for a stated purpose (European Union, 2016). | | - European Union. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 (General Data Protection Regulation). Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 1–88. eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
- Information Commissioner's Office. (2020). Age appropriate design: A code of practice for online services (Standard 8: Data minimisation). ico.org.uk ↗
|
|---|
| Data model | A description of the things a system holds data about, their attributes and how they relate, such as pupils, classes and enrolments. | - R14Data strategy and governanceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - DAMA International. (2017). DAMA-DMBOK: Data management body of knowledge (2nd ed.). Technics Publications. damadmbok.org ↗
- Kleppmann, M. (2017). Designing data-intensive applications: The big ideas behind reliable, scalable, and maintainable systems. O'Reilly Media.
|
|---|
| Data pipeline | An automated series of steps that moves data from where it is produced to where it is used, transforming and checking it on the way. | - R14Data strategy and governanceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Kleppmann, M. (2017). Designing data-intensive applications: The big ideas behind reliable, scalable, and maintainable systems. O'Reilly Media.
|
|---|
| Data processing agreement | The contract that binds a vendor to handle personal data only on the school's or ministry's instructions, keep it secure, name its sub-processors and return or delete it at the end. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - European Union. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation). Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 1–88.
|
|---|
| Data product | A dataset prepared and maintained for others to use, with documentation, quality guarantees and a named owner, as a team would treat any product. | - R14Data strategy and governanceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Dehghani, Z. (2022). Data mesh: Delivering data-driven value at scale. O'Reilly Media.
|
|---|
| Data profiling | Examining a dataset's actual contents, such as value ranges, blanks, formats and duplicates, to find quality problems before the data is used. | - R14Data strategy and governanceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - DAMA International. (2017). DAMA-DMBOK: Data management body of knowledge (2nd ed.). Technics Publications. damadmbok.org ↗
|
|---|
| Data protection impact assessment (DPIA) | A documented assessment, made before a project starts, of the risks that its use of personal data poses to people, and of the measures that will reduce them. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - European Union. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation). Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 1–88.
- Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. (2017). Guidelines on data protection impact assessment (DPIA) and determining whether processing is "likely to result in a high risk" for the purposes of Regulation 2016/679 (WP 248 rev.01). European Commission.
|
|---|
| Data protection officer (DPO) | The person an organisation appoints to oversee its compliance with data protection law, advise on impact assessments and deal with the regulator and the public. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - European Union. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation). Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 1–88.
- Personal Data Protection Act 2012 (2020 Rev. Ed.) (Singapore).
|
|---|
| Data quality | How fit data is for a stated purpose, judged on dimensions such as completeness and accuracy (Government Data Quality Hub, 2020). | | - Wang, R. Y., & Strong, D. M. (1996). Beyond accuracy: What data quality means to data consumers. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(4), 5–33. doi ↗
- Government Data Quality Hub. (2020). The Government Data Quality Framework. GOV.UK. gov.uk ↗
- Nagle, T., Redman, T. C., & Sammon, D. (2017). Only 3% of companies' data meets basic quality standards. Harvard Business Review. hbr.org ↗
|
|---|
| Data quality dimensions | The aspects on which data quality is assessed, commonly accuracy, completeness, uniqueness, consistency, timeliness and validity. | - R14Data strategy and governanceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Government Data Quality Hub. (2020). The Government Data Quality Framework. GOV.UK. gov.uk ↗
- Wang, R. Y., & Strong, D. M. (1996). Beyond accuracy: What data quality means to data consumers. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(4), 5–33. doi ↗
- DAMA International. (2017). DAMA-DMBOK: Data management body of knowledge (2nd ed.). Technics Publications. damadmbok.org ↗
|
|---|
| Data subject rights | The rights people have over data about them, such as to see it, correct it, have it erased, object to its use and take it elsewhere. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - European Union. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation). Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 1–88.
- Personal Data Protection Act 2012 (2020 Rev. Ed.) (Singapore).
|
|---|
| Data warehouse | A central store of cleaned, structured data drawn from an organisation's operational systems and arranged for reporting and analysis, not for day-to-day transactions. | - R14Data strategy and governanceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - DAMA International. (2017). DAMA-DMBOK: Data management body of knowledge (2nd ed.). Technics Publications. damadmbok.org ↗
- Kimball, R., & Ross, M. (2013). The data warehouse toolkit: The definitive guide to dimensional modeling (3rd ed.). Wiley.
|
|---|
| Data-driven decision making | The systematic collection and analysis of data to guide decisions in schools and systems. Many now prefer "data-informed", to keep professional judgement in the picture. | - R14Data strategy and governanceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Mandinach, E. B. (2012). A perfect time for data use: Using data-driven decision making to inform practice. Educational Psychologist, 47(2), 71–85. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Database | The part of a system that stores records, such as students, classes and marks. | | - Codd, E. F. (1970). A relational model of data for large shared data banks. Communications of the ACM, 13(6), 377–387. doi ↗
|
|---|
| De-implementation | Stopping an approach on purpose, with the same care as starting one (Sharples et al., 2024). | | |
|---|
| Debrief | A short meeting of the research team straight after a session to record what each person noticed, before memory fades and sessions blur together. | - R04Discovery researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Portigal, S. (2023). Interviewing users: How to uncover compelling insights (2nd ed.). Rosenfeld Media. rosenfeldmedia.com ↗
|
|---|
| Decision register | A table of the decisions a data collection serves, with each decision's owner, date, data needs and threshold. | | |
|---|
| Deep learning | Machine learning with neural networks of many layers, each layer building more abstract features from the one before. It underlies modern speech, image and language models. | - R16AI in learning productsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015). Deep learning. Nature, 521(7553), 436–444. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Definition of Done | The shared quality standard a piece of work must meet to count as part of the Increment. | | - Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (2020). The Scrum Guide: The definitive guide to Scrum: The rules of the game. scrumguides.org ↗
|
|---|
| Definition of Ready | A team's agreed checklist for what a backlog item needs, such as clear acceptance criteria and a size estimate, before it can be taken into a sprint. | - R09Agile and Scrum in practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Rubin, K. S. (2012). Essential Scrum: A practical guide to the most popular agile process. Addison-Wesley.
|
|---|
| Deliberate practice | Practice designed to improve one specific part of performance, with a clear goal, full concentration, immediate feedback and repetition. | - R21Professional learning that changes practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Delivery | The work of building and releasing something reliably. | | - Cagan, M. (2018). Inspired: How to create tech products customers love (2nd ed.). Wiley.
- Sy, D. (2007). Adapting usability investigations for agile user-centered design. Journal of Usability Studies, 2(3), 112–132. uxpajournal.org ↗
- Patton, J. (2017, May 10). Dual track development is not duel track. Jeff Patton & Associates. jpattonassociates.com ↗
|
|---|
| Deploy | To put a new version of software into production. It need not be visible to users. | | - Government Digital Service. (2024). Deploying software regularly. GOV.UK Service Manual. gov.uk ↗
- Humble, J., & Farley, D. (2010). Continuous delivery: Reliable software releases through build, test, and deployment automation. Addison-Wesley. oreilly.com ↗
|
|---|
| Deployment frequency | A count of deployments over a period; one of the three DORA measures of throughput (DORA, 2026). | | - DORA. (2026). DORA's software delivery performance metrics. Google Cloud. dora.dev ↗
- Forsgren, N., Humble, J., & Kim, G. (2018). Accelerate: The science of lean software and DevOps: Building and scaling high performing technology organizations. IT Revolution. itrevolution.com ↗
- Harvey, N. (2026). A history of DORA's software delivery metrics. DORA. dora.dev ↗
|
|---|
| Deployment pipeline | The automated stages a change passes through from commit to production (Humble & Farley, 2010). | | - Humble, J., & Farley, D. (2010). Continuous delivery: Reliable software releases through build, test, and deployment automation. Addison-Wesley. oreilly.com ↗
- Government Digital Service. (2024). Deploying software regularly. GOV.UK Service Manual. gov.uk ↗
|
|---|
| Deployment rework rate | The share of deployments that are unplanned and made because of an incident in production (DORA, 2026). | | - DORA. (2026). DORA's software delivery performance metrics. Google Cloud. dora.dev ↗
- Harvey, N. (2026). A history of DORA's software delivery metrics. DORA. dora.dev ↗
|
|---|
| Deprecation | A warning that a feature will be removed in a later release, given before it goes. | | - Lacan, O. (2026). Keep a Changelog (Version 2.0.0). keepachangelog.com ↗
- Wu, J., He, H., Gao, K., Xiao, W., Li, J., & Zhou, M. (2024). A comprehensive analysis of challenges and strategies for software release notes on GitHub. Empirical Software Engineering, 29, Article 104. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Design brief | The written starting point of a design project, giving the problem as first understood, the people it is for, the constraints and what would count as success. | - R03Design thinking, used honestlyFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. HarperBusiness.
|
|---|
| Design effect | The factor by which clustering inflates the sample needed: 1 + (m − 1) × ICC (Donner & Klar, 2000). | | - Kish, L. (1965). Survey sampling. Wiley. wiley.com ↗
- Donner, A., & Klar, N. (2000). Design and analysis of cluster randomization trials in health research. Arnold. wiley.com ↗
- Hedges, L. V., & Hedberg, E. C. (2007). Intraclass correlation values for planning group-randomized trials in education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(1), 60–87. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Design fixation | Blind adherence to a set of ideas that limits the options a designer considers (Jansson & Smith, 1991). | | - Jansson, D. G., & Smith, G. M. (1991). Design fixation. Design Studies, 12(1), 3–11. doi ↗
- Purcell, A. T., & Gero, J. S. (1996). Design and other types of fixation. Design Studies, 17(4), 363–383. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Design partner | A child or adult who takes part in design as an equal stakeholder, not only as a tester (Druin, 2002). | | - Druin, A. (2002). The role of children in the design of new technology. Behaviour & Information Technology, 21(1), 1–25. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Design review | A meeting held to approve a design or check it against requirements before it moves on. It is a gate, unlike a critique, which aims to improve work still in progress. | - R07Design methods IIFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Connor, A., & Irizarry, A. (2015). Discussing design: Improving communication and collaboration through critique. O'Reilly Media. oreilly.com ↗
|
|---|
| Design space | The full set of possible designs for a problem. Sketches and prototypes are ways of exploring it before settling on one region. | - R07Design methods IIFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Lim, Y.-K., Stolterman, E., & Tenenberg, J. (2008). The anatomy of prototypes: Prototypes as filters, prototypes as manifestations of design ideas. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 15(2), Article 7. doi ↗
- Buxton, B. (2007). Sketching user experiences: Getting the design right and the right design. Morgan Kaufmann. books.google.com ↗
|
|---|
| Design sprint | A five-day process in which a small team maps a problem, sketches solutions, picks one, builds a realistic prototype and tests it with five users. | - R07Design methods IIFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Knapp, J., Zeratsky, J., & Kowitz, B. (2016). Sprint: How to solve big problems and test new ideas in just five days. Simon & Schuster.
|
|---|
| Design studio | A workshop in which a mixed team sketches ideas individually, presents and critiques them, then converges on a shared design over several rounds. | - R07Design methods IIFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Gothelf, J., & Seiden, J. (2013). Lean UX: Applying lean principles to improve user experience. O'Reilly Media.
|
|---|
| Design system | A product that holds an organisation's shared interface decisions, parts, guidance and code, with a team that maintains them. | | |
|---|
| Design theatre | The visible rituals of design work, such as sticky notes and sprints, without the evidence and judgement behind them. | | - Kimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking design thinking: Part I. Design and Culture, 3(3), 285–306. doi ↗
- Vinsel, L. (2017). Design thinking is kind of like syphilis: It's contagious and rots your brains. Medium. sts-news.medium.com ↗
- Kolko, J. (2018). The divisiveness of design thinking. Interactions, 25(3), 28–34. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Design thinking | A way of framing and exploring a problem before solving it, drawn from how designers work. | | - Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92. hbr.org ↗
- Dorst, K. (2011). The core of 'design thinking' and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521–532. doi ↗
- Kimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking design thinking: Part I. Design and Culture, 3(3), 285–306. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Design token | A named design decision, such as a colour or spacing value, stored once and used everywhere (Design Tokens Community Group, 2025). | | - Curtis, N. (2016). Tokens in design systems. EightShapes. medium.com ↗
- Design Tokens Community Group. (2025). Design tokens format module 2025.10 (Final Community Group Report). W3C Community Group. designtokens.org ↗
|
|---|
| Designerly ways of knowing | The claim that design has its own forms of knowledge and problem solving, distinct from the sciences and the humanities, centred on proposing solutions to ill-defined problems. | - R03Design thinking, used honestlyFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221–227. doi ↗
|
|---|
| DesignOps | The orchestration and optimisation of people, processes and craft to increase the value and impact of design at scale (Kaplan, 2019). | | - Kaplan, K. (2019). DesignOps 101. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
- Kaplan, K. (2020). DesignOps maturity: Low in most organizations. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
|
|---|
| Desirability, feasibility and viability | Three kinds of assumption in a plan: whether teachers and students want it, whether the team can build and run it, and whether anyone will pay and keep paying (Bland & Osterwalder, 2019). | | - Bland, D. J., & Osterwalder, A. (2019). Testing business ideas: A field guide for rapid experimentation. Wiley. books.google.com ↗
- Bland, D. J. (2020, August 4). How assumptions mapping can focus your teams on running experiments that matter. Strategyzer. strategyzer.com ↗
|
|---|
| Desk research | Research that draws on material which already exists, such as published studies, policy papers, usage data and support records, before any new data is collected. | - R04Discovery researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| Desktop walkthrough | A service prototype in which a team acts out a journey on a tabletop with small figures and a simple map, to find gaps before anything is built. | - R02Service design and systems thinkingFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Stickdorn, M., Hormess, M. E., Lawrence, A., & Schneider, J. (2018). This is service design doing: Applying service design thinking in the real world. O'Reilly Media.
|
|---|
| DevOps | A movement of developers and operations staff working together, with automation, feature flags, shared measures and a culture that avoids blame, to make releasing so ordinary that it stops being dangerous (Allspaw & Hammond, 2009). | | - Allspaw, J., & Hammond, P. (2009). 10+ deploys per day: Dev and ops cooperation at Flickr [Conference presentation]. O'Reilly Velocity Conference 2009, San Jose, CA, United States. slideshare.net ↗
- Forsgren, N., Humble, J., & Kim, G. (2018). Accelerate: The science of lean software and DevOps: Building and scaling high performing technology organizations. IT Revolution. itrevolution.com ↗
- devopsdays. (n.d.). About devopsdays. Retrieved September 17, 2026, from devopsdays.org ↗
|
|---|
| Diary study | A study in which participants record their own activities, thoughts or problems over days or weeks, capturing events a researcher could not be present for. | - R04Discovery researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Rohrer, C. (2022). When to use which user-experience research methods. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
- Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 579–616. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Difference-in-differences | A quasi-experimental method that compares the change over time in a group that received an intervention with the change in a group that did not. | - R13Experimentation and product analyticsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist's companion. Princeton University Press. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Differential privacy | A mathematical guarantee that a published statistic changes very little whether or not any one person's data is included, achieved by adding calibrated random noise. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Dwork, C., McSherry, F., Nissim, K., & Smith, A. (2006). Calibrating noise to sensitivity in private data analysis. In S. Halevi & T. Rabin (Eds.), Theory of cryptography (pp. 265–284). Springer. doi ↗
- Dwork, C., & Roth, A. (2014). The algorithmic foundations of differential privacy. Foundations and Trends in Theoretical Computer Science, 9(3–4), 211–407. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Diffusion | The process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system (Rogers, 2003). | | - Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
- Ryan, B., & Gross, N. C. (1943). The diffusion of hybrid seed corn in two Iowa communities. Rural Sociology, 8(1), 15–24.
|
|---|
| Direction | Feedback that tells a designer what to change, usually without a reason tied to a goal. | | - Connor, A. (2016). 3 kinds of feedback. Discussing Design, Medium. medium.com ↗
- Connor, A., & Irizarry, A. (2015). Discussing design: Improving communication and collaboration through critique. O'Reilly Media. oreilly.com ↗
|
|---|
| Discovery | The work of deciding whether something is worth building, using quick and cheap tests. | | - Cagan, M. (2018). Inspired: How to create tech products customers love (2nd ed.). Wiley.
- Torres, T. (2021). Continuous discovery habits: Discover products that create customer value and business value. Product Talk.
- Sy, D. (2007). Adapting usability investigations for agile user-centered design. Journal of Usability Studies, 2(3), 112–132. uxpajournal.org ↗
|
|---|
| Discovery research | Research done before designing, to learn what people do now and why. | | - Hall, E. (2019). Just enough research (2nd ed.). A Book Apart. abookapart.com ↗
- Portigal, S. (2023). Interviewing users: How to uncover compelling insights (2nd ed.). Rosenfeld Media. rosenfeldmedia.com ↗
- Rohrer, C. (2022). When to use which user-experience research methods. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
|
|---|
| Discussion guide | The interviewer's plan for a session: the topics, the main questions and rough timings. It is a prompt to work from, not a script to read out. | - R04Discovery researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Portigal, S. (2023). Interviewing users: How to uncover compelling insights (2nd ed.). Rosenfeld Media. rosenfeldmedia.com ↗
- Hall, E. (2019). Just enough research (2nd ed.). A Book Apart. abookapart.com ↗
|
|---|
| Disparate impact | Harm that falls more heavily on a protected group from a rule or model that is neutral on its face, whatever the intent behind it. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971).
- Barocas, S., & Selbst, A. D. (2016). Big data's disparate impact. California Law Review, 104(3), 671–732.
|
|---|
| Distributed leadership | Leadership spread across several people, such as heads of department and subject leads, which is how a tool becomes part of everyday routines (Leithwood et al., 2008). | | - Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership & Management, 28(1), 27–42. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Distribution | The pattern of how values spread out: where they cluster, how far they range and which way they lean. | | - Spiegelhalter, D. (2019). The art of statistics: Learning from data. Pelican.
- Kunin, D., Guo, J., Devlin, T. D., & Xiang, D. (n.d.). Seeing theory: A visual introduction to probability and statistics. Brown University. seeing-theory.brown.edu ↗
|
|---|
| Divergent thinking | Widening the range of options or perspectives before choosing among them. | | - Design Council. (n.d.-a). Framework for innovation. Retrieved September 17, 2026, from designcouncil.org.uk ↗
- Design Council. (2007). Eleven lessons: Managing design in eleven global brands. A study of the design process. idi-design.ie ↗
|
|---|
| Domain Name System (DNS) | The internet's directory, which turns a name such as a school's web address into the numeric address of the server to contact. A DNS fault makes a working service unreachable. | - R11Software development for non-engineersFrom the field · not in the guide
| - MDN Web Docs. (n.d.). How the web works. Mozilla. Retrieved September 17, 2026, from developer.mozilla.org ↗
- Mockapetris, P. (1987). Domain names: Concepts and facilities (RFC 1034). Internet Engineering Task Force. doi ↗
|
|---|
| DORA measures | Five measures of software delivery performance, three of throughput and two of instability, read together and never as targets (DORA, 2026). | | - DORA. (2026). DORA's software delivery performance metrics. Google Cloud. dora.dev ↗
- Forsgren, N., Humble, J., & Kim, G. (2018). Accelerate: The science of lean software and DevOps: Building and scaling high performing technology organizations. IT Revolution. itrevolution.com ↗
- Harvey, N. (2026). A history of DORA's software delivery metrics. DORA. dora.dev ↗
|
|---|
| Dosage | The amount of a programme a participant actually receives, counted in hours, sessions or coaching cycles, as distinct from the amount planned. | - R21Professional learning that changes practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| Dot voting | A quick way for a group to narrow options: each person gets a few sticky dots and places them on the ideas they favour. | - R07Design methods IIFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Gray, D., Brown, S., & Macanufo, J. (2010). Gamestorming: A playbook for innovators, rulebreakers, and changemakers. O'Reilly Media.
- Knapp, J., Zeratsky, J., & Kowitz, B. (2016). Sprint: How to solve big problems and test new ideas in just five days. Simon & Schuster.
|
|---|
| Double Diamond | The Design Council's model of design as two rounds of divergence and convergence: discover and define, then develop and deliver. | | - Design Council. (2007). Eleven lessons: Managing design in eleven global brands. A study of the design process. idi-design.ie ↗
- Design Council. (n.d.-b). History of the Double Diamond. Retrieved September 17, 2026, from designcouncil.org.uk ↗
- Design Council. (n.d.-a). Framework for innovation. Retrieved September 17, 2026, from designcouncil.org.uk ↗
|
|---|
| Double-barrelled question | A question that asks about two things at once, such as whether a tool is "quick and easy", so an answer cannot be tied to either. | - R05Evaluative researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| Driver diagram | A one-page picture of an improvement team's working theory: the aim, the primary and secondary drivers believed to produce it, and the change ideas to be tested against each. | - R10Lean product developmentFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. G. (2015). Learning to improve: How America's schools can get better at getting better. Harvard Education Press. books.google.com ↗
|
|---|
| Dual-track development | Running discovery and delivery as two parallel tracks, two kinds of work and two kinds of thinking, with ideas tested and settled ahead of the code that implements them (Patton, 2017). | | - Sy, D. (2007). Adapting usability investigations for agile user-centered design. Journal of Usability Studies, 2(3), 112–132. uxpajournal.org ↗
- Patton, J. (2017, May 10). Dual track development is not duel track. Jeff Patton & Associates. jpattonassociates.com ↗
- Cagan, M. (2018). Inspired: How to create tech products customers love (2nd ed.). Wiley.
|
|---|
| E |
|---|
| Early-warning system | A tool that predicts which students may fail or leave, so that support can be offered early. | | - Macfadyen, L. P., & Dawson, S. (2010). Mining LMS data to develop an “early warning system” for educators: A proof of concept. Computers & Education, 54(2), 588–599. doi ↗
- Bowers, A. J., Sprott, R., & Taff, S. A. (2013). Do we know who will drop out? A review of the predictors of dropping out of high school: Precision, sensitivity, and specificity. The High School Journal, 96(2), 77–100. doi ↗
- Perdomo, J. C., Britton, T., Hardt, M., & Abebe, R. (2025). Difficult lessons on social prediction from Wisconsin public schools. In Proceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 2682–2704). ACM. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Economic principle | The best prototype makes an idea's possibilities and limits visible in the simplest, most efficient way (Lim et al., 2008). | | - Lim, Y.-K., Stolterman, E., & Tenenberg, J. (2008). The anatomy of prototypes: Prototypes as filters, prototypes as manifestations of design ideas. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 15(2), Article 7. doi ↗
- Rudd, J., Stern, K., & Isensee, S. (1996). Low vs. high-fidelity prototyping debate. Interactions, 3(1), 76–85. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Ecosystem map | A picture of every person, organisation, system and rule around a user's task. | | - Polaine, A., Løvlie, L., & Reason, B. (2013). Service design: From insight to implementation. Rosenfeld Media.
- Stickdorn, M., Hormess, M. E., Lawrence, A., & Schneider, J. (2018). This is service design doing: Applying service design thinking in the real world. O'Reilly Media.
- Kalbach, J. (2020). Mapping experiences: A complete guide to customer alignment through journeys, blueprints, and diagrams (2nd ed.). O'Reilly Media. openlibrary.org ↗
|
|---|
| Ed-Fi Data Standard | A standard covering K–12 information about students and their academic performance, used by a number of US states and districts, for example for records sent to the state (Ed-Fi Alliance, n.d.). | | - Ed-Fi Alliance. (n.d.). About the Ed-Fi Data Standard. Retrieved September 17, 2026, from docs.ed-fi.org ↗
|
|---|
| Educational data mining (EDM) | A sister field to learning analytics that develops methods for finding patterns in educational data, with an emphasis on automated discovery and modelling. | - R15Learning analyticsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Baker, R. S. J. d., & Yacef, K. (2009). The state of educational data mining in 2009: A review and future visions. Journal of Educational Data Mining, 1(1), 3–17. doi ↗
- Siemens, G., & Baker, R. S. J. d. (2012). Learning analytics and educational data mining: Towards communication and collaboration. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 252–254). ACM. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Effect size | The size of a difference between groups, often in standard deviations. Comparable only when tests and comparison groups are similar. R18 The size of a difference or relationship, in raw units or standardised against the spread. R21 A difference between groups expressed in standard deviations, so results from different tests can be compared. | | - von Hippel, P. T. (2024). Two-sigma tutoring: Separating science fiction from science fact. Education Next, 24(2). educationnext.org ↗
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Kraft, M. A., Blazar, D., & Hogan, D. (2018). The effect of teacher coaching on instruction and achievement: A meta-analysis of the causal evidence. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 547–588. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Effectiveness trial | A test of a programme at larger scale under ordinary conditions. | | - Kraft, M. A., Blazar, D., & Hogan, D. (2018). The effect of teacher coaching on instruction and achievement: A meta-analysis of the causal evidence. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 547–588. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Efficacy trial | A test of a programme under favourable conditions, usually small and closely supported. | | - Kraft, M. A., Blazar, D., & Hogan, D. (2018). The effect of teacher coaching on instruction and achievement: A meta-analysis of the causal evidence. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 547–588. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Effort ledger | A count of the minutes a change adds and removes for one person over a set period. | | - Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. doi ↗
- Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Eight-step change model | Kotter's sequence for leading change, which runs from creating urgency and building a guiding coalition, through short-term wins, to anchoring the change in the culture. | - R19Adoption and change in schoolsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Harvard Business School Press. doi ↗
- Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59–67.
|
|---|
| Embargo | An agreement that information shared in advance will not be published or passed on before a set date and time. | - R20Communicating change to schoolsFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| Embedding | A list of numbers that represents a piece of text, an image or another item so that items with similar meaning sit close together. It is the basis of semantic search. | - R16AI in learning productsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Pennington, J., Socher, R., & Manning, C. D. (2014). GloVe: Global vectors for word representation. Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), 1532–1543. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Empathy | In design, the effort to understand a situation as the people in it experience it, gained by observing, talking with and working alongside them, not by imagining them. | - R03Design thinking, used honestlyFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92. hbr.org ↗
- Kouprie, M., & Sleeswijk Visser, F. (2009). A framework for empathy in design: Stepping into and out of the user's life. Journal of Engineering Design, 20(5), 437–448. doi ↗
- Leonard, D., & Rayport, J. F. (1997). Spark innovation through empathic design. Harvard Business Review, 75(6), 102–113.
|
|---|
| Empathy map | A one-page chart of what a type of user says, thinks, does and feels, used by a team to pool what it knows about that user. | - R06Design methods IFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Gray, D., Brown, S., & Macanufo, J. (2010). Gamestorming: A playbook for innovators, rulebreakers, and changemakers. O'Reilly Media.
|
|---|
| Empiricism | The view that knowledge comes from experience and from making decisions based on what is observed; the foundation on which Scrum rests (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2020). | | - Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (2020). The Scrum Guide: The definitive guide to Scrum: The rules of the game. scrumguides.org ↗
|
|---|
| Empowered product team | A cross-functional team that is given a problem and an outcome to achieve, and the authority to decide the solution, in place of a list of features to build. | - R01Digital product managementFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Cagan, M., Hickman, L., Jones, C., Idiodi, C., & Moore, J. (2024). Transformed: Moving to the product operating model. Wiley.
- Cagan, M., & Jones, C. (2021). Empowered: Ordinary people, extraordinary products. Wiley.
|
|---|
| Encryption at rest | Encrypting stored data, in databases, backups and laptops, so that a stolen disk or copied file cannot be read without the key. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Scarfone, K., Souppaya, M., & Sexton, M. (2007). Guide to storage encryption technologies for end user devices (NIST Special Publication 800-111). National Institute of Standards and Technology. doi ↗
- Anderson, R. (2020). Security engineering: A guide to building dependable distributed systems (3rd ed.). Wiley. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Encryption in transit | Encrypting data as it moves between a device and a server or between servers, usually with TLS, so that it cannot be read or altered on the way. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Rescorla, E. (2018). The Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol version 1.3 (RFC 8446). Internet Engineering Task Force. doi ↗
|
|---|
| End of life (EOL) | The date after which a product or version is no longer sold, updated or supported, announced in advance so users can move off it. | - R20Communicating change to schoolsFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| End-to-end service | A service considered from the moment a user first has a need to the moment it is fully met, across every channel and organisation involved, not only the part one team owns. | - R02Service design and systems thinkingFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Downe, L. (2020). Good services: How to design services that work. BIS Publishers. good.services ↗
- Government Digital Service. (2019). Service Standard. GOV.UK. gov.uk ↗
|
|---|
| End-to-end test | An automated test that drives the whole running system as a user would, for example by logging in through a browser and submitting work. Slow and fragile, so kept few. | - R11Software development for non-engineersFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| Epic | A user story too large to finish in one sprint, kept as a placeholder and split into smaller stories before work starts. | - R09Agile and Scrum in practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Cohn, M. (2004). User stories applied: For agile software development. Addison-Wesley. mountaingoatsoftware.com ↗
- Cohn, M. (2005). Agile estimating and planning. Prentice Hall.
|
|---|
| Error budget | The amount of failure a reliability target allows over a period; one minus the target. R12 The amount of unreliability a service may have in a period before releases pause (Beyer et al., 2016). | | - Beyer, B., Jones, C., Petoff, J., & Murphy, N. R. (Eds.). (2016). Site reliability engineering: How Google runs production systems. O'Reilly Media. sre.google ↗
|
|---|
| Error rate | The number of mistakes users make while attempting a task, reported per task or per opportunity for error. | - R05Evaluative researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Sauro, J., & Lewis, J. R. (2016). Quantifying the user experience: Practical statistics for user research (2nd ed.). Morgan Kaufmann. shop.elsevier.com ↗
|
|---|
| Escalation | Passing a ticket to someone with more expertise (functional escalation) or more authority (hierarchical escalation) when it cannot be resolved where it is. | - R22Support and feedback loopsFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| Ethics review board | A committee that reviews research involving people before it starts, weighing risks, benefits, consent and fairness. It is called an institutional review board (IRB) in the United States. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Protection of Human Subjects, 45 C.F.R. Part 46 (2018).
- National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
|
|---|
| Ethnography | The study of a group in its own setting over an extended period, through observation and taking part, to understand practices as the group itself understands them. | - R04Discovery researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2019). Ethnography: Principles in practice (4th ed.). Routledge. doi ↗
|
|---|
| EU AI Act | The European Union's 2024 regulation laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence, which lists systems used to evaluate learning outcomes among high-risk uses (European Union, 2024). | | - European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). Official Journal of the European Union, L 2024/1689. eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
- Council of the European Union. (2026, June 29). Artificial intelligence: Council gives final green light to simplify and streamline rules [Press release]. consilium.europa.eu ↗
|
|---|
| Evaluation set | A fixed collection of real tasks with agreed answers, used to test a feature each time the model or prompt changes. | | - National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2024). Artificial intelligence risk management framework: Generative artificial intelligence profile (NIST AI 600-1). U.S. Department of Commerce. doi ↗
- Department for Education. (2026). Generative AI: Product safety standards (Updated January 19, 2026). GOV.UK. gov.uk ↗
|
|---|
| Evaluator effect | The finding that different evaluators using the same method on the same system report different problems (Hertzum & Jacobsen, 2001). | | - Hertzum, M., & Jacobsen, N. E. (2001). The evaluator effect: A chilling fact about usability evaluation methods. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 13(4), 421–443. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Evidence trail | The links from an insight or decision back to the observations it rests on. | | |
|---|
| Evolutionary prototype | A prototype built to be kept and refined, round by round, until it becomes the product. | - R07Design methods IIFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Tripp, S. D., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 31–44. doi ↗
- Floyd, C. (1984). A systematic look at prototyping. In R. Budde, K. Kuhlenkamp, L. Mathiassen, & H. Züllighoven (Eds.), Approaches to prototyping (pp. 1–18). Springer. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Exemplar | A strong piece of finished work shown to learners before they begin, so they can see and discuss what quality looks like. | - R07Design methods IIFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Berger, R. (2003). An ethic of excellence: Building a culture of craftsmanship with students. Heinemann. heinemann.com ↗
- Berger, R., Rugen, L., & Woodfin, L. (2014). Leaders of their own learning: Transforming schools through student-engaged assessment. Jossey-Bass. wiley.com ↗
|
|---|
| Exit and voice | Two responses to a failing organisation: leaving it, or speaking up to change it (Hirschman, 1970). | | - Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Harvard University Press. hup.harvard.edu ↗
|
|---|
| Experience API (xAPI) | A specification for recording what learners did and sending it to a learning record store, published as IEEE 9274.1.1-2023 (IEEE, 2023). | | - IEEE. (2023). IEEE standard for learning technology: JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) data model format and Representational State Transfer (RESTful) web service for learner experience data tracking and access (IEEE 9274.1.1-2023). standards.ieee.org ↗
|
|---|
| Experience prototyping | Any representation, in any medium, that lets designers, users or clients go through a future situation themselves instead of being told about it. | - R07Design methods IIFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Buchenau, M., & Fulton Suri, J. (2000). Experience prototyping. In Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (pp. 424–433). ACM. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Explain-back | A check in which the people affected describe the change and what they will do, in their own words. | | - General Services Administration. (n.d.). Paraphrase testing. Digital.gov plain language guide series. Retrieved September 17, 2026, from digital.gov ↗
|
|---|
| Explainability | How far a system can give reasons for an output that the people affected can understand and check. | - R16AI in learning productsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2023). Artificial intelligence risk management framework (AI RMF 1.0) (NIST AI 100-1). U.S. Department of Commerce. doi ↗
- Khosravi, H., Shum, S. B., Chen, G., Conati, C., Tsai, Y.-S., Kay, J., Knight, S., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Sadiq, S., & Gašević, D. (2022). Explainable artificial intelligence in education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, Article 100074. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Explainer pack | A short set of materials that lets a school leader or head of department explain a change. | | - Coburn, C. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476–509. doi ↗
- Sharples, J., Eaton, J., & Boughelaf, J. (2024). A school's guide to implementation (3rd ed.). Education Endowment Foundation. educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk ↗
|
|---|
| External validity | The extent to which a study's result holds for other people, settings, times and versions of the intervention than those studied. | - R13Experimentation and product analyticsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.
|
|---|
| Extreme Programming (XP) | An agile method built on engineering practices such as pair programming, test-first development, continuous integration and small, frequent releases. | - R09Agile and Scrum in practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Beck, K., & Andres, C. (2004). Extreme programming explained: Embrace change (2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley.
|
|---|
| Eye tracking | Recording where on a screen a person looks, for how long and in what order, using a device that follows the movement of their eyes. | - R05Evaluative researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Rohrer, C. (2022). When to use which user-experience research methods. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
- Nielsen, J., & Pernice, K. (2010). Eyetracking web usability. New Riders.
|
|---|
| F |
|---|
| F-shaped pattern | The way people often scan web text: across the top, across again a little lower, then down the left side (Pernice, 2017). | | - Pernice, K. (2017). F-shaped pattern of reading on the web: Misunderstood, but still relevant (even on mobile). Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
- Nielsen, J. (1997). How users read on the web. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
- Nielsen, J. (2008). How little do users read? Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
|
|---|
| Facilitating conditions | The support and infrastructure a person believes exist for using a system (Venkatesh et al., 2003). | | - Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. doi ↗
- Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Failed deployment recovery time | How long it takes to recover from a deployment that fails and needs immediate intervention (DORA, 2026). R22 The time it takes to recover from a deployment that fails and requires immediate intervention (DORA, 2026). | | - DORA. (2026). DORA's software delivery performance metrics. Google Cloud. dora.dev ↗
- Harvey, N. (2026). A history of DORA's software delivery metrics. DORA. dora.dev ↗
- Forsgren, N., Humble, J., & Kim, G. (2018). Accelerate: The science of lean software and DevOps: Building and scaling high performing technology organizations. IT Revolution Press.
|
|---|
| Failure demand | Demand on a service caused by a failure to do something, or to do it right, for the user (Seddon, 2003). | | - Seddon, J. (2003). Freedom from command and control: A better way to make the work work. Vanguard Education.
|
|---|
| FAIR principles | Guidelines that data should be findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable, by machines as well as people. FAIR data need not be open data. | - R14Data strategy and governanceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten, J.-W., da Silva Santos, L. B., Bourne, P. E., Bouwman, J., Brookes, A. J., Clark, T., Crosas, M., Dillo, I., Dumon, O., Edmunds, S., Evelo, C. T., Finkers, R., . . . Mons, B. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data, 3, Article 160018. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Fairness metric | A statistic that compares a model's behaviour across groups, such as selection rates or error rates. The common metrics cannot all be met at once, so one must be chosen and justified. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Barocas, S., Hardt, M., & Narayanan, A. (2023). Fairness and machine learning: Limitations and opportunities. MIT Press.
- Chouldechova, A. (2017). Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments. Big Data, 5(2), 153–163. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Fake-door test | Offering a feature that does not yet exist and counting who tries to use it. | | - Bland, D. J., & Osterwalder, A. (2019). Testing business ideas: A field guide for rapid experimentation. Wiley. books.google.com ↗
|
|---|
| False alarm | A student flagged as at risk who would have been fine. Also called a false positive. | | - Bowers, A. J., Sprott, R., & Taff, S. A. (2013). Do we know who will drop out? A review of the predictors of dropping out of high school: Precision, sensitivity, and specificity. The High School Journal, 96(2), 77–100. doi ↗
- Feathers, T. (2023). False alarm: How Wisconsin uses race and income to label students “high risk”. The Markup. themarkup.org ↗
|
|---|
| Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) | The 1974 United States law that gives parents, and students from 18, rights over education records, and limits what a school receiving federal funds may disclose without consent. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g.
- Family Educational Rights and Privacy, 34 C.F.R. Part 99.
|
|---|
| Feature flag | A setting that switches a feature on or off, or for some users only, without changing code (Hodgson, 2017). | | - Hodgson, P. (2017). Feature toggles (aka feature flags). martinfowler.com. martinfowler.com ↗
- Allspaw, J., & Hammond, P. (2009). 10+ deploys per day: Dev and ops cooperation at Flickr [Conference presentation]. O'Reilly Velocity Conference 2009, San Jose, CA, United States. slideshare.net ↗
|
|---|
| Feature request | A user's suggestion for something the product does not yet do, logged separately from faults and passed to the product team. | - R22Support and feedback loopsFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| Federated model | A model in which the teams closest to data own it, and a central group sets standards they follow. R08 A way of owning a design system in which a representative, empowered subset of designers and leaders from product teams shape it together, with a central group to document and maintain it (Curtis, 2015). | | - DAMA International. (2017). DAMA-DMBOK: Data management body of knowledge (2nd ed.). Technics Publications. damadmbok.org ↗
- Curtis, N. (2015). Team models for scaling a design system. EightShapes. medium.com ↗
- Dehghani, Z. (2022). Data mesh: Delivering data-driven value at scale. O'Reilly Media.
|
|---|
| Feedback loop | A route by which the effects of an action return to influence the next action. | | - Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer (D. Wright, Ed.). Chelsea Green.
- Sterman, J. D. (1989). Modeling managerial behavior: Misperceptions of feedback in a dynamic decision making experiment. Management Science, 35(3), 321–339. doi ↗
- Sterman, J. D. (2006). Learning from evidence in a complex world. American Journal of Public Health, 96(3), 505–514. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Fidelity | How close a prototype is to the finished product in look, behaviour and content. R21 The degree to which a programme is delivered as designed. | | - Rudd, J., Stern, K., & Isensee, S. (1996). Low vs. high-fidelity prototyping debate. Interactions, 3(1), 76–85. doi ↗
- Sims, S., Fletcher-Wood, H., O'Mara-Eves, A., Cottingham, S., Stansfield, C., Van Herwegen, J., & Anders, J. (2021). What are the characteristics of effective teacher professional development? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Education Endowment Foundation. files.eric.ed.gov ↗
- Walker, M., Takayama, L., & Landay, J. A. (2002). High-fidelity or low-fidelity, paper or computer? Choosing attributes when testing web prototypes. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 46(5), 661–665. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Field notes | The researcher's written record of what was seen and heard during fieldwork, made at the time or soon after, keeping description apart from the researcher's own reading of it. | - R04Discovery researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Filters and manifestations | Two roles of a prototype: a filter selects the aspects of an idea to examine, and a manifestation makes the idea concrete in some material, level of detail and scope (Lim et al., 2008). | | - Lim, Y.-K., Stolterman, E., & Tenenberg, J. (2008). The anatomy of prototypes: Prototypes as filters, prototypes as manifestations of design ideas. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 15(2), Article 7. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Finding | A statement of what the research observed, backed by evidence. It comes before an insight, which says what the finding means and why it matters. | - R06Design methods IFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| Fine-tuning | Further training of an already-trained model on a smaller, specific dataset so that it performs better on a particular task or in a particular style. | - R16AI in learning productsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Howard, J., & Ruder, S. (2018). Universal language model fine-tuning for text classification. Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), 328–339. doi ↗
|
|---|
| First response time | The time between a user raising a ticket and the first reply from a person, not counting automatic acknowledgements. | - R22Support and feedback loopsFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| First-contact resolution (FCR) | The share of requests resolved in the user's first contact, with no follow-up, transfer or repeat contact needed. | - R22Support and feedback loopsFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| First-order barrier | An external obstacle to using technology, such as time, access or support (Ertmer, 1999). | | - Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Fitts's law | The time to reach a target depends on its size and distance, so a large, clearly labelled primary action is easier to hit (Fitts, 1954). | | - Fitts, P. M. (1954). The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47(6), 381–391. doi ↗
- Budiu, R. (2022). Fitts's law and its applications in UX. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
|
|---|
| Five levels of evaluation | Five levels of evidence for professional learning: participants' reactions, their learning, organisation support and change, their use of new knowledge and skills, and student learning outcomes (Guskey, 2002). | | - Guskey, T. R. (2002). Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 45–51. ascd.org ↗
- Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Corwin Press.
|
|---|
| Five whys | Asking 'why?' of a problem repeatedly, about five times, to get past its symptoms to a cause worth fixing. | - R10Lean product developmentFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Ohno, T. (1988). Toyota production system: Beyond large-scale production. Productivity Press.
- Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup: How today's entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. Crown Business. theleanstartup.com ↗
|
|---|
| Five-step model | The basic, linear process of empathise, define, ideate, prototype and test popularised by Stanford's d.school, which its academic director calls just a first recipe, a suggestion for how to get started (Carter, 2016). | | - Carter, C. (2016). Let's stop talking about THE design process. Stanford d.school. dschool.stanford.edu ↗
- Stanford d.school. (2025). Let's stop talking about THE design process [Introduction to Carter, 2016]. dschool.stanford.edu ↗
- Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92. hbr.org ↗
|
|---|
| Five-user rule | The advice to test with five users, from a model in which one user reveals about 31% of problems, so five find about 85% on average, though any five may not (Nielsen, 2000). | | - Nielsen, J., & Landauer, T. K. (1993). A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. In Proceedings of the INTERACT '93 and CHI '93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 206–213). ACM. doi ↗
- Nielsen, J. (2000). Why you only need to test with 5 users. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
- Faulkner, L. (2003). Beyond the five-user assumption: Benefits of increased sample sizes in usability testing. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35(3), 379–383. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Flaky test | An automated test that sometimes passes and sometimes fails on the same code. Flaky tests teach a team to ignore failures, which undermines the pipeline. | - R12DevOps and continuous deliveryFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Luo, Q., Hariri, F., Eloussi, L., & Marinov, D. (2014). An empirical analysis of flaky tests. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (pp. 643–653). ACM. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Flow efficiency | The share of an item's total elapsed time during which someone is actually working on it, as opposed to it waiting in a queue. | - R10Lean product developmentFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Modig, N., & Åhlström, P. (2012). This is lean: Resolving the efficiency paradox. Rheologica Publishing.
|
|---|
| Focus group | A moderated discussion among a small group of participants on a set topic. It shows how people talk about a subject together, not how each of them behaves. | - R04Discovery researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2015). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (5th ed.). SAGE.
|
|---|
| Forgetting curve | The pattern of rapid early loss of learned material, first described by Ebbinghaus and since replicated (Murre & Dros, 2015). | | - Murre, J. M. J., & Dros, J. (2015). Replication and analysis of Ebbinghaus' forgetting curve. PLOS ONE, 10(7), Article e0120644. doi ↗
- Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354–380. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Formative and summative testing | Formative testing looks for problems to fix while a design is still changing. Summative testing measures how well a finished design performs, often against a target or an earlier version. | - R05Evaluative researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Sauro, J., & Lewis, J. R. (2016). Quantifying the user experience: Practical statistics for user research (2nd ed.). Morgan Kaufmann. shop.elsevier.com ↗
- Rubin, J., & Chisnell, D. (2008). Handbook of usability testing: How to plan, design, and conduct effective tests (2nd ed.). Wiley.
|
|---|
| Foundation model | A large model trained on broad data that can be adapted to many tasks, and on which many separate products are built. | - R16AI in learning productsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2024). Artificial intelligence risk management framework: Generative artificial intelligence profile (NIST AI 600-1). U.S. Department of Commerce. doi ↗
- Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., Bernstein, M. S., Bohg, J., Bosselut, A., Brunskill, E., Brynjolfsson, E., Buch, S., Card, D., Castellon, R., Chatterji, N., Chen, A., Creel, K., Davis, J. Q., Demszky, D., … Liang, P. (2021). On the opportunities and risks of foundation models [Preprint]. arXiv. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Four golden signals | Four signals worth watching on any live service: latency, traffic, errors and saturation (Beyer et al., 2016). | | - Beyer, B., Jones, C., Petoff, J., & Murphy, N. R. (Eds.). (2016). Site reliability engineering: How Google runs production systems. O'Reilly Media. sre.google ↗
|
|---|
| Frame | A way of seeing a problem that implies how value could be created (Dorst, 2011). | | - Dorst, K. (2011). The core of 'design thinking' and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521–532. doi ↗
- Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design. MIT Press. mitpress.mit.edu ↗
- Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
|
|---|
| Framework method | A way of analysing qualitative data by summarising it into a matrix of cases against themes, so that it can be read across cases and within each case. | - R06Design methods IFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Gale, N. K., Heath, G., Cameron, E., Rashid, S., & Redwood, S. (2013). Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13, Article 117. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Freemium | A pricing model in which a basic version of a product is free and users or institutions pay for further features, capacity or support. | - R01Digital product managementFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Anderson, C. (2009). Free: The future of a radical price. Hyperion.
|
|---|
| Front end | The early, uncertain stage of design where a team decides what to design, if anything (Sanders & Stappers, 2008). R11 The part of a system that runs in the browser or app and that users see and touch. | | - Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18. doi ↗
- MDN Web Docs. (n.d.). How the web works. Mozilla. Retrieved September 17, 2026, from developer.mozilla.org ↗
|
|---|
| Front-loading | Putting the most important information at the start of a message, heading or line. | | - Pernice, K. (2017). F-shaped pattern of reading on the web: Misunderstood, but still relevant (even on mobile). Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
- Government Digital Service. (n.d.-c). Create a clear structure for your content. GOV.UK content and publishing guidance. Retrieved September 17, 2026, from guidance.publishing.service.gov.uk ↗
- Nielsen, J. (1997). How users read on the web. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
|
|---|
| Frontstage | Work and touchpoints the user sees directly. | | - Bitner, M. J., Ostrom, A. L., & Morgan, F. N. (2008). Service blueprinting: A practical technique for service innovation. California Management Review, 50(3), 66–94. doi ↗
- Shostack, G. L. (1984). Designing services that deliver. Harvard Business Review, 62(1), 133–139. hbr.org ↗
- Gibbons, S. (2017, August 27). Service blueprints: Definition. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
|
|---|
| Function creep | The gradual use of data or a system for purposes beyond the one it was set up for, such as attendance data reused for discipline. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Koops, B.-J. (2021). The concept of function creep. Law, Innovation and Technology, 13(1), 29–56. doi ↗
|
|---|
| I |
|---|
| Ideation | The stage of design work given to producing many possible solutions to a framed problem, before any is judged or chosen. | - R03Design thinking, used honestlyFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92. hbr.org ↗
|
|---|
| Identifier | A value that distinguishes one record, such as a student or a school, from every other. | | - Department for Education. (2019). Unique pupil number (UPN) (Guide version 1.2). assets.publishing.service.gov.uk ↗
- Government Accountability Office. (2014). Education and workforce data: Challenges in matching student and worker information raise concerns about longitudinal data systems (GAO-15-27). gao.gov ↗
|
|---|
| Ill-structured problem | A problem whose goals, constraints and permitted moves are not fully given at the outset, so that part of solving it is deciding what the problem is. | - R03Design thinking, used honestlyFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4(3–4), 181–201. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Impact | Long-term change in organisations, communities or systems, often years after the work. | | - W. K. Kellogg Foundation. (2004). Logic model development guide. naccho.org ↗
|
|---|
| Implementation dip | A fall in performance and confidence while new skills are learned (Fullan, 2001). | | - Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. Jossey-Bass.
- Sharples, J., Eaton, J., & Boughelaf, J. (2024). A school's guide to implementation: Guidance report. Education Endowment Foundation. educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk ↗
|
|---|
| Implementation phases | The EEF's four phases of implementation, Explore, Prepare, Deliver and Sustain, which end in an explicit decision to sustain, scale or de-implement an approach (Sharples et al., 2024). | | |
|---|
| Improvement science | An approach to improving school systems through rapid cycles of Plan, Do, Study, Act, to learn fast, fail fast and improve quickly (Bryk et al., 2015). | | - Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. G. (2015). Learning to improve: How America's schools can get better at getting better. Harvard Education Press. books.google.com ↗
- Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (n.d.). The six core principles of improvement. Retrieved September 17, 2026, from carnegiefoundation.org ↗
|
|---|
| In vivo code | A code that takes a participant's own word or phrase as its label, keeping their language in the analysis. | - R06Design methods IFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Saldaña, J. (2025). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (5th ed.). SAGE.
|
|---|
| In-app notification | A message shown inside a product while it is in use, such as a banner, badge or pop-up, rather than sent by email or text. | - R20Communicating change to schoolsFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| In-context help | Help shown inside the task, at the point where a user needs it, rather than in a separate help centre. | | - Laubheimer, P. (2023). Onboarding tutorials vs. contextual help. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
- Kendrick, A. (2020). Help and documentation (Usability heuristic #10). Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
- Nielsen, J. (2024). 10 usability heuristics for user interface design. Nielsen Norman Group. (Original work published 1994) nngroup.com ↗
|
|---|
| In-service training (INSET) | Training for teachers already in post. In England, an INSET day is one of the five days a year when schools close to pupils for staff training. | - R21Professional learning that changes practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| Incentive | A payment, voucher or other thanks given to participants for their time. Its size and form can change who volunteers, and in schools it may be restricted. | - R04Discovery researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Government Digital Service. (2020). Find user research participants. GOV.UK Service Manual. gov.uk ↗
- Portigal, S. (2023). Interviewing users: How to uncover compelling insights (2nd ed.). Rosenfeld Media. rosenfeldmedia.com ↗
|
|---|
| Incident | An unplanned interruption to a service or reduction in its quality (AXELOS, 2019). | | - AXELOS. (2019). ITIL Foundation: ITIL 4 edition. TSO. axelos.com ↗
- Flora, E. (2023a). An overview of the incident management practice in ITIL 4. Beyond20. beyond20.com ↗
|
|---|
| Incident response plan | The agreed steps for a security incident: who decides, how to contain it, how to recover, whom to tell and how to learn from it afterwards. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Cichonski, P., Millar, T., Grance, T., & Scarfone, K. (2012). Computer security incident handling guide (NIST Special Publication 800-61, Rev. 2). National Institute of Standards and Technology. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Inclusive design | Designing so that the widest range of people can use a product, by considering from the start those most likely to be excluded by disability, language, age or circumstance. | - R08UX foundations and design systemsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Holmes, K. (2018). Mismatch: How inclusion shapes design. MIT Press. doi ↗
- Horton, S., & Quesenbery, W. (2013). A web for everyone: Designing accessible user experiences. Rosenfeld Media.
|
|---|
| Increment | A usable step towards the Product Goal. A sprint may produce several. | | - Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (2020). The Scrum Guide: The definitive guide to Scrum: The rules of the game. scrumguides.org ↗
|
|---|
| Induction | The structured programme of support, training and reduced load given to teachers in their first years in the profession or in a new school. | - R21Professional learning that changes practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Ingersoll, R. M., & Strong, M. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring programs for beginning teachers: A critical review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 201–233. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Inductive and deductive coding | Inductive coding builds codes from what is in the data. Deductive coding applies codes set in advance from a theory, a framework or the research questions. | - R06Design methods IFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. doi ↗
- Saldaña, J. (2025). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (5th ed.). SAGE.
|
|---|
| Inference | Running a trained model to produce an output, as distinct from training it. Every response a student receives is one inference, with its own cost and delay. | - R16AI in learning productsFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| Information architecture | The way a product's content is organised, labelled and linked so that people can find what they need and understand where they are. | - R08UX foundations and design systemsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Rosenfeld, L., Morville, P., & Arango, J. (2015). Information architecture: For the web and beyond (4th ed.). O'Reilly Media.
|
|---|
| Information overload | The point at which a person receives more information than they can process, so that decisions get worse and messages are missed. | - R20Communicating change to schoolsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Eppler, M. J., & Mengis, J. (2004). The concept of information overload: A review of literature from organization science, accounting, marketing, MIS, and related disciplines. The Information Society, 20(5), 325–344. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Information radiator | A large, visible display, such as a task board or burndown chart on a wall, that lets anyone see a team's progress without asking. | - R09Agile and Scrum in practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Cockburn, A. (2002). Agile software development. Addison-Wesley. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Information scent | The cues in a link, label or heading that tell a user how likely it is to lead to what they are looking for. | - R08UX foundations and design systemsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Pirolli, P., & Card, S. (1999). Information foraging. Psychological Review, 106(4), 643–675. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Infrastructure as code | Defining servers, networks and their settings in files kept under version control, so that environments are created and changed by running tested scripts, not by hand. | - R12DevOps and continuous deliveryFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Humble, J., & Farley, D. (2010). Continuous delivery: Reliable software releases through build, test, and deployment automation. Addison-Wesley. oreilly.com ↗
- Morris, K. (2016). Infrastructure as code: Managing servers in the cloud. O'Reilly Media.
|
|---|
| Innovation accounting | A way of setting milestones and judging progress by what has been learned (Ries, 2011). | | - Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup: How today's entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. Crown Business. theleanstartup.com ↗
|
|---|
| Innovation configuration | A map, from the Concerns-Based Adoption Model, that describes what an innovation looks like in use, from ideal to unacceptable variations of each component. | - R19Adoption and change in schoolsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2014). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes (4th ed.). Pearson. pearson.com ↗
|
|---|
| Innovation partnership | A public procurement route that runs in phases with intermediate targets and lets the buyer end the partnership after any phase (Directive 2014/24/EU, 2014). | | - Directive 2014/24/EU. (2014). Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC. Official Journal of the European Union, L 94, 65–242. eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
|
|---|
| Input metric | A measure a team can move directly through its own work and which is believed to drive the north star metric. | - R01Digital product managementFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| Insight | An explanation of why a pattern exists. A claim, not a fact. | | - Kolko, J. (2010). Abductive thinking and sensemaking: The drivers of design synthesis. Design Issues, 26(1), 15–28. doi ↗
- Pidcock, D. (2018). What is atomic UX research? Prototypr. blog.prototypr.io ↗
|
|---|
| Institutional review board (IRB) | A committee that reviews planned research with human participants to protect their rights and welfare. Called a research ethics committee in the UK. | - R13Experimentation and product analyticsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Protection of Human Subjects, 45 C.F.R. pt. 46 (2018). ecfr.gov ↗
- British Educational Research Association. (2024). Ethical guidelines for educational research (5th ed.). bera.ac.uk ↗
|
|---|
| Institutionalisation | The stage at which a change has become part of an organisation's routines, budgets and expectations and no longer depends on the people who introduced it. | - R19Adoption and change in schoolsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). Teachers College Press.
|
|---|
| Instructional rounds | A practice adapted from medical rounds, in which a group of educators visits classrooms to observe a shared problem of practice and then discusses the patterns seen. | - R21Professional learning that changes practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - City, E. A., Elmore, R. F., Fiarman, S. E., & Teitel, L. (2009). Instructional rounds in education: A network approach to improving teaching and learning. Harvard Education Press.
|
|---|
| Instrumentation | The code that records user and system events in a product, and the work of adding it. An experiment can only measure what has been instrumented. | - R13Experimentation and product analyticsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Kohavi, R., Tang, D., & Xu, Y. (2020). Trustworthy online controlled experiments: A practical guide to A/B testing. Cambridge University Press. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Integration test | An automated test that checks several parts of a system working together, such as the code and its database, rather than one unit on its own. | - R11Software development for non-engineersFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Fowler, M. (2012, May 1). Test pyramid. martinfowler.com. martinfowler.com ↗
- Myers, G. J. (1979). The art of software testing. Wiley.
|
|---|
| Intelligent tutoring system | Software that guides a learner step by step and adapts to their responses. It predates generative AI (VanLehn, 2011). | | - VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 197–221. doi ↗
- Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 167–207. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Intention to treat | Analysing everyone by the group they were assigned to, whatever they actually used (Education Endowment Foundation, 2022). | | - Education Endowment Foundation. (2022). Statistical analysis guidance for EEF evaluations. d2tic4wvo1iusb.cloudfront.net ↗
- What Works Clearinghouse. (2022). What Works Clearinghouse procedures and standards handbook, version 5.0 (WWC 2022008). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. ies.ed.gov ↗
|
|---|
| Intercept survey | A short survey shown to people while they are using a website or product, so that answers are gathered in the moment of use. | - R05Evaluative researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Rohrer, C. (2022). When to use which user-experience research methods. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
|
|---|
| Internal validity | The extent to which a study supports the claim that the intervention, and not something else, caused the observed difference. | - R13Experimentation and product analyticsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.
|
|---|
| Interoperability standard | An agreed format and method for exchanging a kind of data between systems, such as OneRoster or LTI. | | - 1EdTech Consortium. (n.d.-b). OneRoster. Retrieved September 17, 2026, from 1edtech.org ↗
- 1EdTech Consortium. (n.d.-c). Learning Tools Interoperability. Retrieved September 17, 2026, from 1edtech.org ↗
- IEEE. (2023). IEEE standard for learning technology: JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) data model format and Representational State Transfer (RESTful) web service for learner experience data tracking and access (IEEE 9274.1.1-2023). standards.ieee.org ↗
|
|---|
| Interpretation | A reading of what an observation means. It should be recorded separately and tested. | | - Ross, R. (1994). The ladder of inference. In P. M. Senge, A. Kleiner, C. Roberts, R. B. Ross, & B. J. Smith, The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. Currency Doubleday. archive.org ↗
- Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Interquartile range (IQR) | The distance between the 25th and 75th percentiles, which holds the middle half of the values. A measure of spread that outliers do not distort. | - R18Basic statistics for educational technologistsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Spiegelhalter, D. (2019). The art of statistics: Learning from data. Pelican.
- Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Addison-Wesley. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Interrupted time series | A quasi-experimental design that takes many measurements before and after an intervention and looks for a change in level or trend at the point it was introduced. | - R13Experimentation and product analyticsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.
|
|---|
| Interval | The range within which an estimate plausibly lies. A narrow interval means more certainty. | | - Perdomo, J. C., Britton, T., Hardt, M., & Abebe, R. (2025). Difficult lessons on social prediction from Wisconsin public schools. In Proceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 2682–2704). ACM. doi ↗
- Cumming, G. (2012). Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. Routledge. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Intervention | The action taken after analytics identifies a need, such as a tutor's call, a message or extra teaching. Analytics without one changes nothing for learners. | - R15Learning analyticsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Clow, D. (2012). The learning analytics cycle: Closing the loop effectively. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 134–138). ACM. doi ↗
- Arnold, K. E., & Pistilli, M. D. (2012). Course Signals at Purdue: Using learning analytics to increase student success. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 267–270). ACM. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Intraclass correlation (ICC) | The share of the variation in an outcome that lies between clusters rather than within them. | | - Hedges, L. V., & Hedberg, E. C. (2007). Intraclass correlation values for planning group-randomized trials in education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(1), 60–87. doi ↗
- Donner, A., & Klar, N. (2000). Design and analysis of cluster randomization trials in health research. Arnold. wiley.com ↗
|
|---|
| Intrinsic load | Load caused by the complexity of the material itself. | | - Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296. doi ↗
- Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261–292. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Inverted pyramid | A structure that starts with the most important point and tapers to detail. | | - Government Digital Service. (n.d.-c). Create a clear structure for your content. GOV.UK content and publishing guidance. Retrieved September 17, 2026, from guidance.publishing.service.gov.uk ↗
- Nielsen, J. (1997). How users read on the web. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
|
|---|
| INVEST | A test for user stories: independent, negotiable, valuable, estimable, small and testable (Wake, 2003). | | - Wake, B. (2003, August 17). INVEST in good stories, and SMART tasks. XP123. xp123.com ↗
- Cohn, M. (2004). User stories applied: For agile software development. Addison-Wesley. mountaingoatsoftware.com ↗
|
|---|
| Invisible inventory | Unfinished product development work is physically and financially invisible: it waits in queues, takes no space and appears on no balance sheet (Reinertsen, 2009). | | - Reinertsen, D. G. (2009). The principles of product development flow: Second generation lean product development. Celeritas Publishing. lpd2.com ↗
|
|---|
| ISO/IEC 27001 | The international standard for an information security management system. An organisation is certified against it by an accredited auditor, and buyers often ask vendors for the certificate. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - International Organization for Standardization & International Electrotechnical Commission. (2022). Information security, cybersecurity and privacy protection — Information security management systems — Requirements (ISO/IEC 27001:2022).
|
|---|
| Iterative design | Designing in repeated rounds of making, testing with users and revising, with each version built on what the last test showed. | - R07Design methods IIFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Buxton, B. (2007). Sketching user experiences: Getting the design right and the right design. Morgan Kaufmann. books.google.com ↗
- Nielsen, J. (1993). Iterative user-interface design. Computer, 26(11), 32–41. doi ↗
|
|---|
| ITIL | The most widely used framework for IT service management, which separates restoring normal service after an incident from finding and removing the causes of incidents (AXELOS, 2019). | | - AXELOS. (2019). ITIL Foundation: ITIL 4 edition. TSO. axelos.com ↗
- Flora, E. (2023a). An overview of the incident management practice in ITIL 4. Beyond20. beyond20.com ↗
- Flora, E. (2023b). An overview of the problem management practice in ITIL 4. Beyond20. beyond20.com ↗
|
|---|
| L |
|---|
| Lab and field testing | The choice between testing in a lab and testing where the product is used; the evidence is mixed, and the setting has to be chosen on purpose (Kjeldskov & Skov, 2014). | | - Kjeldskov, J., Skov, M. B., Als, B. S., & Høegh, R. T. (2004). Is it worth the hassle? Exploring the added value of evaluating the usability of context-aware mobile systems in the field. In S. Brewster & M. Dunlop (Eds.), Mobile human-computer interaction: MobileHCI 2004 (pp. 61–73). Springer. doi ↗
- Kjeldskov, J., & Skov, M. B. (2014). Was it worth the hassle? Ten years of mobile HCI research discussions on lab and field evaluations. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (pp. 43–52). ACM. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Ladder of inference | The steps from observable data to beliefs and actions, each adding the observer's meaning (Ross, 1994). | | - Ross, R. (1994). The ladder of inference. In P. M. Senge, A. Kleiner, C. Roberts, R. B. Ross, & B. J. Smith, The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. Currency Doubleday. archive.org ↗
- Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming organizational defenses: Facilitating organizational learning. Allyn and Bacon.
|
|---|
| Laddering | An interview technique that repeatedly asks why something matters, moving from a feature a person mentions to the consequence and then the value behind it. | - R04Discovery researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Reynolds, T. J., & Gutman, J. (1988). Laddering theory, method, analysis, and interpretation. Journal of Advertising Research, 28(1), 11–31. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Lag | The delay between a signal and the outcome it is meant to predict or improve. | | - Perdomo, J. C., Britton, T., Hardt, M., & Abebe, R. (2025). Difficult lessons on social prediction from Wisconsin public schools. In Proceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 2682–2704). ACM. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Large language model (LLM) | A neural network trained on very large amounts of text to predict the next token, which lets it generate, summarise and transform language on request. | - R16AI in learning productsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 610–623. doi ↗
- Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., … Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, Article 102274. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Large-Scale Scrum (LeSS) | Scrum applied to many teams working together on one product, with fewer roles and artefacts, not more (Larman & Vodde, n.d.). | | - Larman, C., & Vodde, B. (n.d.). Introduction to LeSS. LeSS Company. Retrieved September 17, 2026, from less.works ↗
- Schwaber, K. (2013, August 6). unSAFe at any speed. Ken Schwaber's Blog. kenschwaber.wordpress.com ↗
|
|---|
| Last responsible moment | The point beyond which delaying a decision would close off an important option. Lean teams defer irreversible decisions until then, so they are made with the most information. | - R10Lean product developmentFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Poppendieck, M., & Poppendieck, T. (2003). Lean software development: An agile toolkit. Addison-Wesley. informit.com ↗
|
|---|
| Latency | The delay between sending a request and receiving the response. Users feel it as slowness, and it usually climbs steeply as a system nears its capacity. | - R11Software development for non-engineersFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Beyer, B., Jones, C., Petoff, J., & Murphy, N. R. (Eds.). (2016). Site reliability engineering: How Google runs production systems. O'Reilly Media. sre.google ↗
- Kleppmann, M. (2017). Designing data-intensive applications: The big ideas behind reliable, scalable, and maintainable systems. O'Reilly Media.
|
|---|
| Lawful basis | The legal ground an organisation relies on to process personal data, such as consent, contract, legal obligation, public task or legitimate interests. Schools seldom need to rely on consent. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - European Union. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation). Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 1–88.
|
|---|
| Lead user | A user whose needs are ahead of most others' and who has often already improvised a solution, making them a source of ideas that the wider group will later want. | - R03Design thinking, used honestlyFrom the field · not in the guide
| - von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: A source of novel product concepts. Management Science, 32(7), 791–805. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Lead-in time | The time between announcing a change and the date it takes effect. | | - Department for Education. (2017). Department for Education protocol for changes to accountability, curriculum and qualifications (DFE-00114-2015). gov.uk ↗
- Green, M. (2025). DfE should stop publishing statutory guidance for schools in July. Tes. tes.com ↗
|
|---|
| Leading question | A question whose wording suggests the answer the asker hopes for. | | - Schuman, H., & Presser, S. (1981). Questions and answers in attitude surveys: Experiments on question form, wording, and context. Academic Press. archive.org ↗
- Pew Research Center. (2021). Writing survey questions. pewresearch.org ↗
|
|---|
| Leading signal | A behaviour that moves within a planning cycle and plausibly moves before the result you want. | | - Amplitude. (2019). The North Star playbook. amplitude.com ↗
- W. K. Kellogg Foundation. (2004). Logic model development guide. naccho.org ↗
|
|---|
| Leaky funnel | This guide's picture of adoption: people lost between awareness, trial, use and changed practice. | | - Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
- Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Harvard University Press. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Lean canvas | An adaptation of the business model canvas for new products, which replaces some blocks with problem, solution, key metrics and unfair advantage. | - R10Lean product developmentFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Maurya, A. (2012). Running lean: Iterate from plan A to a plan that works (2nd ed.). O'Reilly Media.
|
|---|
| Lean start-up | An approach built on three practices: writing the business idea as hypotheses, testing them with customers outside the building, and building in small steps (Blank, 2013). | | - Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup: How today's entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. Crown Business. theleanstartup.com ↗
- Blank, S. (2013). Why the lean start-up changes everything. Harvard Business Review, 91(5), 63–72. hbr.org ↗
- Camuffo, A., Cordova, A., Gambardella, A., & Spina, C. (2020). A scientific approach to entrepreneurial decision making: Evidence from a randomized control trial. Management Science, 66(2), 564–586. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Lean thinking | Lean production reduced to five principles: value, the value stream, flow, pull and perfection (Womack & Jones, 1996). | | - Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (1996). Lean thinking: Banish waste and create wealth in your corporation. Simon & Schuster. lean.org ↗
- Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., & Roos, D. (1990). The machine that changed the world. Rawson Associates. archive.org ↗
|
|---|
| Learnability | How quickly and easily a new user can reach competent use of a product. It is measured by how performance improves over repeated attempts. | - R05Evaluative researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. Academic Press. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Learner model | A system's running estimate of what a student knows, can do or prefers, updated from their responses and used to adapt tasks or report progress. | - R15Learning analyticsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Corbett, A. T., & Anderson, J. R. (1995). Knowledge tracing: Modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 4(4), 253–278. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Learning analytics | The measurement, collection, analysis and reporting of data about learners and their contexts, to understand and improve learning (Long and Siemens, 2011). | | - Long, P., & Siemens, G. (2011). Penetrating the fog: Analytics in learning and education. EDUCAUSE Review, 46(5). er.educause.edu ↗
- Gašević, D., Dawson, S., & Siemens, G. (2015). Let’s not forget: Learning analytics are about learning. TechTrends, 59(1), 64–71. doi ↗
- Ferguson, R. (2012). Learning analytics: Drivers, developments and challenges. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(5/6), 304–317. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Learning analytics cycle | Learners generate data, the data becomes metrics or visualisations, and those lead to interventions that affect learners. A dashboard nobody acts on stops the cycle halfway (Clow, 2012). | | - Clow, D. (2012). The learning analytics cycle: Closing the loop effectively. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 134–138). ACM. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Learning design | The planned sequence of tasks, resources and support in a course. Analytics can only be interpreted against what the design intended students to do. | - R15Learning analyticsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Gašević, D., Dawson, S., Rogers, T., & Gasevic, D. (2016). Learning analytics should not promote one size fits all: The effects of instructional conditions in predicting academic success. The Internet and Higher Education, 28, 68–84. doi ↗
- Lockyer, L., Heathcote, E., & Dawson, S. (2013). Informing pedagogical action: Aligning learning analytics with learning design. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1439–1459. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Learning evidence | Information designed to show what a student understands or can do, such as answers to well-designed questions. | | - Gašević, D., Dawson, S., & Siemens, G. (2015). Let’s not forget: Learning analytics are about learning. TechTrends, 59(1), 64–71. doi ↗
- Gašević, D., Dawson, S., Rogers, T., & Gasevic, D. (2016). Learning analytics should not promote one size fits all: The effects of instructional conditions in predicting academic success. The Internet and Higher Education, 28, 68–84. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Learning management system (LMS) | The platform through which an institution delivers courses, materials, assignments and grades, and the main source of activity data. Called a virtual learning environment (VLE) in the UK. | - R15Learning analyticsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Macfadyen, L. P., & Dawson, S. (2010). Mining LMS data to develop an “early warning system” for educators: A proof of concept. Computers & Education, 54(2), 588–599. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Learning record store (LRS) | A database that receives, stores and returns records of learning activity sent as xAPI statements from many tools. | - R15Learning analyticsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - IEEE. (2023). IEEE standard for learning technology: JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) data model format and Representational State Transfer (RESTful) web service for learner experience data tracking and access (IEEE 9274.1.1-2023).
|
|---|
| Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI) | A standard that lets learning management systems or platforms integrate remote tools and content in a standard way, such as opening a tool from the LMS (1EdTech Consortium, n.d.-c). | | - 1EdTech Consortium. (n.d.-c). Learning Tools Interoperability. Retrieved September 17, 2026, from 1edtech.org ↗
|
|---|
| Learning walk | A short, structured visit to several classrooms by leaders or colleagues, looking for one agreed aspect of teaching rather than judging individual teachers. | - R21Professional learning that changes practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| Least privilege | The principle that each user, program or service gets only the access its job needs, so that a mistake or a stolen account can do limited damage. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Saltzer, J. H., & Schroeder, M. D. (1975). The protection of information in computer systems. Proceedings of the IEEE, 63(9), 1278–1308. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Legacy system | An older system that an organisation still depends on but finds hard to change, because its technology is outdated, its authors have left or it lacks tests and documentation. | - R11Software development for non-engineersFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Feathers, M. C. (2004). Working effectively with legacy code. Prentice Hall. doi ↗
- Bisbal, J., Lawless, D., Wu, B., & Grimson, J. (1999). Legacy information systems: Issues and directions. IEEE Software, 16(5), 103–111. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Lesson study | A Japanese form of professional learning in which teachers jointly plan a lesson, watch one of them teach it, and discuss what the students did. | - R21Professional learning that changes practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Murata, A. (2006). How should research contribute to instructional improvement? The case of lesson study. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 3–14. doi ↗
- Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world's teachers for improving education in the classroom. Free Press.
|
|---|
| Levels of use | Eight levels describing how a person uses an innovation, from nonuse to renewal (Hall & Hord, 2014). | | - Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2014). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes (4th ed.). Pearson. pearson.com ↗
- Hall, G. E., Loucks, S. F., Rutherford, W. L., & Newlove, B. W. (1975). Levels of use of the innovation: A framework for analyzing innovation adoption. Journal of Teacher Education, 26(1), 52–56. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Leverage point | A place in a system where a small change can produce a large effect (Meadows, 1999). | | - Meadows, D. (1999). Leverage points: Places to intervene in a system. The Sustainability Institute. donellameadows.org ↗
- Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer (D. Wright, Ed.). Chelsea Green.
|
|---|
| Likert scale | A set of statements, each rated on an ordered scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree, with the ratings combined into one score. The name is often used loosely for a single such item. | - R05Evaluative researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22(140), 1–55.
|
|---|
| Line of interaction | The line on a service blueprint that separates what the user does from what frontstage staff or systems do. Every crossing of it is a touchpoint. | - R02Service design and systems thinkingFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Bitner, M. J., Ostrom, A. L., & Morgan, F. N. (2008). Service blueprinting: A practical technique for service innovation. California Management Review, 50(3), 66–94. doi ↗
- Gibbons, S. (2017, August 27). Service blueprints: Definition. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
|
|---|
| Line of internal interaction | The line on a service blueprint that separates backstage staff, who deal with the user's case, from the support processes and systems they rely on. | - R02Service design and systems thinkingFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Bitner, M. J., Ostrom, A. L., & Morgan, F. N. (2008). Service blueprinting: A practical technique for service innovation. California Management Review, 50(3), 66–94. doi ↗
- Gibbons, S. (2017, August 27). Service blueprints: Definition. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
|
|---|
| Line of visibility | The line on a blueprint that separates what the user sees from what they don't. | | - Shostack, G. L. (1984). Designing services that deliver. Harvard Business Review, 62(1), 133–139. hbr.org ↗
- Bitner, M. J., Ostrom, A. L., & Morgan, F. N. (2008). Service blueprinting: A practical technique for service innovation. California Management Review, 50(3), 66–94. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Lineage | A record of where data came from and what has been done to it on the way. | | - Government Data Quality Hub. (2020). The Government Data Quality Framework. GOV.UK. gov.uk ↗
- DAMA International. (2017). DAMA-DMBOK: Data management body of knowledge (2nd ed.). Technics Publications. damadmbok.org ↗
|
|---|
| Linear regression | A method that fits a straight-line relationship between an outcome and one or more predictors, estimating how much the outcome changes as each predictor changes. | - R18Basic statistics for educational technologistsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist's companion. Princeton University Press.
- Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., & Friedman, J. (2009). The elements of statistical learning: Data mining, inference, and prediction (2nd ed.). Springer.
- Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge University Press. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Linked session | A training session built around a lesson the teacher is about to teach. | | - Desimone, L. M., & Garet, M. S. (2015). Best practices in teachers' professional development in the United States. Psychology, Society, & Education, 7(3), 252–263. repositorio.ual.es ↗
- Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers' professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Little's law | In a stable system, average work in progress equals the arrival rate multiplied by the average time in the system (Little, 1961). | | - Little, J. D. C. (1961). A proof for the queuing formula: L = λW. Operations Research, 9(3), 383–387. doi ↗
- Reinertsen, D. G. (2009). The principles of product development flow: Second generation lean product development. Celeritas Publishing. lpd2.com ↗
|
|---|
| Load balancer | A component that spreads incoming requests across several servers, so that no single one is overwhelmed and a failed server can be taken out of use. | - R11Software development for non-engineersFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Beyer, B., Jones, C., Petoff, J., & Murphy, N. R. (Eds.). (2016). Site reliability engineering: How Google runs production systems. O'Reilly Media. sre.google ↗
|
|---|
| Load test | A test that sends a system realistic or higher-than-expected traffic to see how it copes and where it breaks. | | - Government Digital Service. (2017, February 6). Test your service's performance. GOV.UK Service Manual. gov.uk ↗
- Office of Inspector General. (2016). HealthCare.gov: Case study of CMS management of the federal marketplace (OEI-06-14-00350). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. oig.hhs.gov ↗
- U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2014). Healthcare.gov: Ineffective planning and oversight practices underscore the need for improved contract management (GAO-14-694). gao.gov ↗
|
|---|
| Logic model | A chain that separates outputs, the direct products of activities, from outcomes, the changes in participants' behaviour, and impact, the change in organisations, communities or systems (W. K. Kellogg Foundation, 2004). | | - W. K. Kellogg Foundation. (2004). Logic model development guide. naccho.org ↗
|
|---|
| Longitudinal data system | A system that links records about the same learners across years, institutions and sometimes sectors, so that their progress can be followed over time. | - R14Data strategy and governanceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Government Accountability Office. (2014). Education and workforce data: Challenges in matching student and worker information raise concerns about longitudinal data systems (GAO-15-27). gao.gov ↗
|
|---|
| Loose coupling | The weak connection between what a school system decides centrally and what happens in each classroom, which lets teachers buffer their practice from outside change. | - R19Adoption and change in schoolsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Lundy model of participation | Four conditions for children's participation to mean something: space to form and express a view, support to express it, an audience with the power to act, and influence (Lundy, 2007). | | - Lundy, L. (2007). ‘Voice’ is not enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal, 33(6), 927–942. doi ↗
- United Nations. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child (General Assembly resolution 44/25). ohchr.org ↗
|
|---|
| M |
|---|
| Machine learning | Building systems that learn patterns from examples instead of following rules written by hand. Most current AI, including generative AI, is machine learning. | - R16AI in learning productsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Jordan, M. I., & Mitchell, T. M. (2015). Machine learning: Trends, perspectives, and prospects. Science, 349(6245), 255–260. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Maintenance window | A period agreed and announced in advance during which a service may be changed or taken offline, chosen for when the fewest people need it. | - R12DevOps and continuous deliveryFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Limoncelli, T. A., & Hogan, C. (2001). The practice of system and network administration. Addison-Wesley.
|
|---|
| Major incident | An incident with serious impact on many users, handled by a separate procedure with a named lead, a dedicated team and frequent updates. | - R22Support and feedback loopsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - AXELOS. (2019). ITIL Foundation: ITIL 4 edition. TSO. axelos.com ↗
|
|---|
| Management information system (MIS) | The core administrative system a school uses to hold pupil, staff, attendance and assessment records. Called a student information system (SIS) in North America. | - R14Data strategy and governanceFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| Mandate | An instruction from an authority to deliver something, often framed as a solution. | | - Christensen, C. M., Hall, T., Dillon, K., & Duncan, D. S. (2016). Competing against luck: The story of innovation and customer choice. HarperBusiness. archive.org ↗
- Morozov, E. (2013). To save everything, click here: The folly of technological solutionism. PublicAffairs.
|
|---|
| Margin of error | The amount added to and subtracted from a survey estimate to give its confidence interval, usually at 95 per cent. It shrinks as the sample grows. | - R18Basic statistics for educational technologistsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Spiegelhalter, D. (2019). The art of statistics: Learning from data. Pelican.
- Cumming, G. (2014). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science, 25(1), 7–29. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Master data | The shared core records that other data refers to: students, staff, schools, classes and courses. | | - DAMA International. (2017). DAMA-DMBOK: Data management body of knowledge (2nd ed.). Technics Publications. damadmbok.org ↗
|
|---|
| Master–apprentice model | The relationship a researcher adopts in contextual inquiry, learning the work as an apprentice would, while it is under way (Holtzblatt & Beyer, 2013). | | - Holtzblatt, K., & Beyer, H. R. (2013). Contextual design. In M. Soegaard & R. F. Dam (Eds.), The encyclopedia of human-computer interaction (2nd ed.). Interaction Design Foundation. ixdf.org ↗
- Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual design: Defining customer-centered systems. Morgan Kaufmann. archive.org ↗
|
|---|
| Mean | The sum of a set of values divided by how many there are. It is what most people call the average, and a few extreme values can pull it a long way. | - R18Basic statistics for educational technologistsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Spiegelhalter, D. (2019). The art of statistics: Learning from data. Pelican.
- Wheelan, C. (2013). Naked statistics: Stripping the dread from the data. W. W. Norton.
|
|---|
| Mechanism | An evidence-based ingredient of how people learn and change behaviour, such as feedback or goal setting. | | - Sims, S., Fletcher-Wood, H., O'Mara-Eves, A., Cottingham, S., Stansfield, C., Van Herwegen, J., & Anders, J. (2021). What are the characteristics of effective teacher professional development? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Education Endowment Foundation. files.eric.ed.gov ↗
|
|---|
| Media richness | A channel's capacity to carry cues and allow quick feedback. Face-to-face talk is rich and a bulk email is lean; ambiguous messages need richer channels. | - R20Communicating change to schoolsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Median | The middle value when a set of values is put in order. Half lie above it and half below, so extreme values barely move it. | - R18Basic statistics for educational technologistsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Spiegelhalter, D. (2019). The art of statistics: Learning from data. Pelican.
- Wheelan, C. (2013). Naked statistics: Stripping the dread from the data. W. W. Norton.
|
|---|
| Member checking | Taking findings or interpretations back to the people they came from, to check that they recognise the account as accurate. | - R06Design methods IFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Mental model | A person's internal picture of how something works, which shapes what they notice and what they do, whether or not it is accurate. | - R02Service design and systems thinkingFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday/Currency.
- Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Harvard University Press.
|
|---|
| Mental model diagram | A diagram that lays out what people do, think and feel in pursuit of a goal, grouped into towers, with the organisation's features and services lined up beneath. | - R06Design methods IFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Kalbach, J. (2020). Mapping experiences: A complete guide to customer alignment through journeys, blueprints, and diagrams (2nd ed.). O'Reilly Media. openlibrary.org ↗
- Young, I. (2008). Mental models: Aligning design strategy with human behavior. Rosenfeld Media. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Mentoring | Support given to a less experienced teacher by a more experienced one over a sustained period, covering the role as a whole rather than one technique. | - R21Professional learning that changes practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Hobson, A. J., Ashby, P., Malderez, A., & Tomlinson, P. D. (2009). Mentoring beginning teachers: What we know and what we don't. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1), 207–216. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Meta-analysis | A statistical method that pools the effect sizes from many studies of the same question into one weighted average. | - R18Basic statistics for educational technologistsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
- Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5(10), 3–8. doi ↗
- Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Wiley. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Metadata | Data that describes data: what a field means, its source, its owner and its quality. | | - DAMA International. (2017). DAMA-DMBOK: Data management body of knowledge (2nd ed.). Technics Publications. damadmbok.org ↗
- Government Data Quality Hub. (2020). The Government Data Quality Framework. GOV.UK. gov.uk ↗
|
|---|
| Micro-credential | A record of assessed learning in a small, specific skill, often issued as a digital badge, which may stand alone or count towards a larger qualification. | - R21Professional learning that changes practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Oliver, B. (2022). Towards a common definition of micro-credentials. UNESCO.
|
|---|
| Microservices | An architecture that splits a system into small services, each run and deployed separately and talking over a network. The alternative, one application deployed as a whole, is called a monolith. | - R11Software development for non-engineersFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Newman, S. (2015). Building microservices: Designing fine-grained systems. O'Reilly Media.
|
|---|
| Microteaching | Teaching a short, scaled-down lesson to a few peers or students, often recorded, and then receiving feedback on one specific skill. | - R21Professional learning that changes practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Allen, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1969). Microteaching. Addison-Wesley. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Migration | Moving existing data or systems into a new structure or location. | | |
|---|
| Miller's law | The much-quoted claim that people can hold about seven items in short-term memory. Later research puts the limit nearer four chunks, and it is not a rule for menu length. | - R08UX foundations and design systemsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97. doi ↗
- Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 87–114. doi ↗
- Yablonski, J. (2020). Laws of UX: Using psychology to design better products & services. O'Reilly Media.
|
|---|
| Minimum detectable effect | The smallest true effect a test is likely to detect, given its size, design and power. | | - Hedges, L. V., & Hedberg, E. C. (2007). Intraclass correlation values for planning group-randomized trials in education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(1), 60–87. doi ↗
- Bloom, H. S. (1995). Minimum detectable effects: A simple way to report the statistical power of experimental designs. Evaluation Review, 19(5), 547–556. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Minimum viable product | The version of a product that gets the most validated learning for the least effort (Ries, 2009). | | - Ries, E. (2009, August 3). Minimum viable product: A guide. Startup Lessons Learned. startuplessonslearned.com ↗
- Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup: How today's entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. Crown Business. theleanstartup.com ↗
- Blank, S. (2013). Why the lean start-up changes everything. Harvard Business Review, 91(5), 63–72. hbr.org ↗
|
|---|
| Missed case | A student who went on to fail or leave but was never flagged. Also called a false negative. | | - Bowers, A. J., Sprott, R., & Taff, S. A. (2013). Do we know who will drop out? A review of the predictors of dropping out of high school: Precision, sensitivity, and specificity. The High School Journal, 96(2), 77–100. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Missing data | Values that were never recorded, such as pupils absent on test day. If they are missing for a reason linked to the outcome, analysing only complete cases biases the result. | - R18Basic statistics for educational technologistsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Rubin, D. B. (1976). Inference and missing data. Biometrika, 63(3), 581–592. doi ↗
- Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (2002). Statistical analysis with missing data (2nd ed.). Wiley.
|
|---|
| Mobile first | Designing for the smallest screen and slowest connection first, then adding to the design for larger screens, which forces early decisions about what matters most. | - R08UX foundations and design systemsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Wroblewski, L. (2011). Mobile first. A Book Apart.
|
|---|
| Mockup | A static picture of a screen showing the intended visual design in full, which looks finished but does nothing. | - R07Design methods IIFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Warfel, T. Z. (2009). Prototyping: A practitioner's guide. Rosenfeld Media.
|
|---|
| Model card | A short document published with a model that states its intended uses, its limits and how it performed for different groups of people. | - R16AI in learning productsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Mitchell, M., Wu, S., Zaldivar, A., Barnes, P., Vasserman, L., Hutchinson, B., Spitzer, E., Raji, I. D., & Gebru, T. (2019). Model cards for model reporting. Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 220–229. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Modelling | Showing teachers what a practice looks like, through a live demonstration, a video or a worked example, before asking them to try it. | - R21Professional learning that changes practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Sims, S., Fletcher-Wood, H., O'Mara-Eves, A., Cottingham, S., Stansfield, C., Van Herwegen, J., & Anders, J. (2021). What are the characteristics of effective teacher professional development? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Education Endowment Foundation. files.eric.ed.gov ↗
|
|---|
| Moderated and unmoderated testing | In a moderated test a researcher guides each participant through the session, in person or remotely. In an unmoderated test participants work through the tasks alone, usually through an online tool. | - R05Evaluative researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Rohrer, C. (2022). When to use which user-experience research methods. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
- Rubin, J., & Chisnell, D. (2008). Handbook of usability testing: How to plan, design, and conduct effective tests (2nd ed.). Wiley.
|
|---|
| Modular contracting | Buying a large system as a series of small contracts, each delivering working parts. | | - Hopson, M., McFadden, V., Refoy, R., & Rouault, A. (Eds.). (2020). De-risking government technology: Federal agency field guide. 18F, U.S. General Services Administration. digitalgovernmenthub.org ↗
|
|---|
| Moment of truth | A point of contact at which a user forms a lasting judgement of the whole service, such as a first login or a results day. | - R02Service design and systems thinkingFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Carlzon, J. (1987). Moments of truth. Ballinger.
|
|---|
| Moment of use | The point at which a person meets a change while doing their task. | | - Government Digital Service. (n.d.-b). Help users prepare for change. GOV.UK content and publishing guidance. Retrieved September 17, 2026, from guidance.publishing.service.gov.uk ↗
|
|---|
| MoSCoW | A method that splits scope into must, should, could and won't, useful for fixed-date releases, with musts kept to no more than about 60% of effort (Clegg & Barker, 1994). | | - Clegg, D., & Barker, R. (1994). Case method fast-track: A RAD approach. Addison-Wesley.
- Agile Business Consortium. (n.d.). MoSCoW prioritisation. DSDM Project Framework Handbook. agilebusiness.org ↗
|
|---|
| Muda | Japanese for waste: any activity that uses resources without creating value for the user. | | - Ohno, T. (1988). Toyota production system: Beyond large-scale production. Productivity Press.
- Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (1996). Lean thinking: Banish waste and create wealth in your corporation. Simon & Schuster. lean.org ↗
- Lean Enterprise Institute. (n.d.). Seven wastes. Lean lexicon. Retrieved September 17, 2026, from lean.org ↗
|
|---|
| Multi-armed bandit | An allocation method that shifts traffic towards the better-performing versions while the test runs, trading some certainty about the effect for fewer users on a worse version. | - R13Experimentation and product analyticsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Lattimore, T., & Szepesvári, C. (2020). Bandit algorithms. Cambridge University Press. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Multi-factor authentication (MFA) | Signing in with two or more kinds of proof, such as a password plus a code from a phone, so that a stolen password is not enough. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Grassi, P. A., Garcia, M. E., & Fenton, J. L. (2017). Digital identity guidelines (NIST Special Publication 800-63-3). National Institute of Standards and Technology. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Multimodal learning analytics | Analytics that combines log data with other sources, such as video, audio, gesture, eye tracking or sensor data, to study learning that happens away from a screen. | - R15Learning analyticsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Blikstein, P. (2013). Multimodal learning analytics. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 102–106). ACM. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Multiple comparisons | The problem that running many tests makes it likely some will come out significant by chance alone. Corrections such as Bonferroni's raise the bar for each test. | - R18Basic statistics for educational technologistsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Spiegelhalter, D. (2019). The art of statistics: Learning from data. Pelican.
- Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 57(1), 289–300. doi ↗
|
|---|
| P |
|---|
| p-hacking | Running many analyses on the same data, which raises the odds that one crosses 0.05 by chance (Simmons et al., 2011). | | - Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366. doi ↗
|
|---|
| p-value | The probability of data at least this extreme if there were no real effect. | | - Wasserstein, R. L., & Lazar, N. A. (2016). The ASA statement on p-values: Context, process, and purpose. The American Statistician, 70(2), 129–133. doi ↗
- Greenland, S., Senn, S. J., Rothman, K. J., Carlin, J. B., Poole, C., Goodman, S. N., & Altman, D. G. (2016). Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: A guide to misinterpretations. European Journal of Epidemiology, 31(4), 337–350. doi ↗
- Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Pain point | A specific place in a task or journey where a person meets difficulty, delay or frustration. | - R06Design methods IFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Gibbons, S. (2018). Journey mapping 101. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
- Kalbach, J. (2020). Mapping experiences: A complete guide to customer alignment through journeys, blueprints, and diagrams (2nd ed.). O'Reilly Media. openlibrary.org ↗
|
|---|
| Pair programming | Two developers working at one computer on the same code, one writing while the other reviews, and swapping roles often. | - R09Agile and Scrum in practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Beck, K., & Andres, C. (2004). Extreme programming explained: Embrace change (2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley.
- Williams, L., & Kessler, R. (2002). Pair programming illuminated. Addison-Wesley.
|
|---|
| Paper prototype | Hand-drawn screens moved by a facilitator in response to what a user does. | | - Rudd, J., Stern, K., & Isensee, S. (1996). Low vs. high-fidelity prototyping debate. Interactions, 3(1), 76–85. doi ↗
- Walker, M., Takayama, L., & Landay, J. A. (2002). High-fidelity or low-fidelity, paper or computer? Choosing attributes when testing web prototypes. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 46(5), 661–665. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Parallel prototyping | Making several prototypes before getting feedback on them together (Dow et al., 2010). | | - Dow, S. P., Glassco, A., Kass, J., Schwarz, M., Schwartz, D. L., & Klemmer, S. R. (2010). Parallel prototyping leads to better design results, more divergence, and increased self-efficacy. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 17(4), Article 18. doi ↗
- Tohidi, M., Buxton, W., Baecker, R., & Sellen, A. (2006). Getting the right design and the design right: Testing many is better than one. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1243–1252). ACM. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Paraphrase test | A test in which readers restate a text in their own words, to show what they understood (General Services Administration, n.d.). | | - General Services Administration. (n.d.). Paraphrase testing. Digital.gov plain language guide series. Retrieved September 17, 2026, from digital.gov ↗
|
|---|
| Participant observation | Fieldwork in which the researcher joins in the activity being studied, to some degree, while observing it. | - R04Discovery researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Participatory design | A tradition, begun in Scandinavian workplaces, in which the people who will use a system take part in designing it and share in the decisions about it. | - R03Design thinking, used honestlyFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18. doi ↗
- Schuler, D., & Namioka, A. (Eds.). (1993). Participatory design: Principles and practices. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
|
|---|
| Pattern | An observation that repeats across people or sessions, reported with a count. R08 A reusable solution to a common user task, such as signing in, built from components. | | - Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. doi ↗
- Frost, B. (2016). Atomic design. Brad Frost Web. atomicdesign.bradfrost.com ↗
- Government Digital Service. (n.d.-a). Contribution criteria. GOV.UK Design System. Retrieved September 17, 2026, from design-system.service.gov.uk ↗
|
|---|
| Pattern library | A catalogue of an organisation's interface components and patterns, with examples and guidance on use. It is one part of a design system. | - R08UX foundations and design systemsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Frost, B. (2016). Atomic design. Brad Frost Web. atomicdesign.bradfrost.com ↗
- Kholmatova, A. (2017). Design systems: A practical guide to creating design languages for digital products. Smashing Media.
|
|---|
| PDSA cycle | Plan, Do, Study, Act: the improvement cycle used in improvement science in education. | | - Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. G. (2015). Learning to improve: How America's schools can get better at getting better. Harvard Education Press. books.google.com ↗
- Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (n.d.). The six core principles of improvement. Retrieved September 17, 2026, from carnegiefoundation.org ↗
|
|---|
| Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) | A teacher's knowledge of how to make a particular subject understandable: its useful representations, and the difficulties and misconceptions students bring to it. | - R21Professional learning that changes practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. doi ↗
- Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Peer coaching | Teachers working in coaching groups to carry training into classroom use; the later model dropped peer feedback, and teachers planned together and observed each other instead (Showers & Joyce, 1996). | | - Showers, B., & Joyce, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 12–16. ascd.org ↗
- Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. books.google.com ↗
|
|---|
| Penetration test | An authorised attack on a system by specialists, to find weaknesses before a real attacker does; often required before launch or in a contract. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Scarfone, K., Souppaya, M., Cody, A., & Orebaugh, A. (2008). Technical guide to information security testing and assessment (NIST Special Publication 800-115). National Institute of Standards and Technology. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Perceived ease of use | How free of effort a person expects a system to be (Davis, 1989). | | - Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. doi ↗
- Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Perceived usefulness | How much a person believes a system will help their work (Davis, 1989). | | - Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. doi ↗
- Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Percentile | The value below which a given percentage of results fall. A student at the 80th percentile scored higher than 80 per cent of the group. | - R18Basic statistics for educational technologistsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Wheelan, C. (2013). Naked statistics: Stripping the dread from the data. W. W. Norton.
|
|---|
| Permissioned opinions | The fourth step of the Critical Response Process, in which opinions come last and only with the maker's permission: "I have an opinion about _____, would you like to hear it?" (Lerman, n.d.). | | - Lerman, L. (n.d.). Critical Response Process. Liz Lerman. Retrieved September 18, 2026, from lizlerman.com ↗
|
|---|
| Persona | A description of a fictional user that stands for a group. A model to test, not a finding. | | - Cooper, A. (1999). The inmates are running the asylum: Why high-tech products drive us crazy and how to restore the sanity. Sams. archive.org ↗
- Pruitt, J., & Grudin, J. (2003). Personas: Practice and theory. In Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Designing for User Experiences (pp. 1–15). ACM. doi ↗
- Chapman, C. N., & Milham, R. P. (2006). The personas' new clothes: Methodological and practical arguments against a popular method. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 50(5), 634–636. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Personal data | Any information about an identified or identifiable living person, including a student number, device identifier or learning record that can be linked to a student. United States usage is personally identifiable information (PII). | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - European Union. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation). Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 1–88.
- Personal Data Protection Act 2012 (2020 Rev. Ed.) (Singapore).
- McCallister, E., Grance, T., & Scarfone, K. (2010). Guide to protecting the confidentiality of personally identifiable information (PII) (NIST Special Publication 800-122). National Institute of Standards and Technology. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) | Singapore's 2012 data protection law for private organisations, including edtech vendors. Government agencies, and so government schools, follow separate public sector rules. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Personal Data Protection Act 2012 (2020 Rev. Ed.) (Singapore).
|
|---|
| Phishing | A message that poses as a trusted sender to trick someone into giving a password, opening a file or paying a false invoice. Aimed at one named person, it is spear phishing. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Jagatic, T. N., Johnson, N. A., Jakobsson, M., & Menczer, F. (2007). Social phishing. Communications of the ACM, 50(10), 94–100. doi ↗
- Mitnick, K. D., & Simon, W. L. (2002). The art of deception: Controlling the human element of security. Wiley.
|
|---|
| Physical evidence | The tangible things a user meets at each step of a service, such as a letter, a screen, a form or a room. It forms the top row of a service blueprint. | - R02Service design and systems thinkingFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Bitner, M. J., Ostrom, A. L., & Morgan, F. N. (2008). Service blueprinting: A practical technique for service innovation. California Management Review, 50(3), 66–94. doi ↗
- Shostack, G. L. (1984). Designing services that deliver. Harvard Business Review, 62(1), 133–139. hbr.org ↗
|
|---|
| Pilot | A small, time-limited trial of a tool or practice in a few schools or classes, run to learn whether and how it works before a wider rollout. | - R19Adoption and change in schoolsFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| Pilot test | A trial run of a study with one or two people, held to find faults in the tasks, questions, timing and equipment before the real sessions begin. | - R05Evaluative researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Rubin, J., & Chisnell, D. (2008). Handbook of usability testing: How to plan, design, and conduct effective tests (2nd ed.). Wiley.
|
|---|
| Pivot | A structured change of course to test a new fundamental hypothesis (Ries, 2011). | | - Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup: How today's entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. Crown Business. theleanstartup.com ↗
- Sadeghiani, A., & Anderson, A. R. (2023). What pivot is: Touching an elephant in the dark. Digital Business, 3(1), Article 100056. doi ↗
- Camuffo, A., Gambardella, A., Messinese, D., Novelli, E., Paolucci, E., & Spina, C. (2024). A scientific approach to entrepreneurial decision-making: Large-scale replication and extension. Strategic Management Journal, 45(6), 1209–1237. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Placeholder text | Dummy wording, often the mock-Latin lorem ipsum, used to fill a layout before the real content exists. It hides the problems real content would reveal. | - R07Design methods IIFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| Plain language | Writing that lets its intended readers find what they need, understand it and use it (International Organization for Standardization, 2023). | | - International Organization for Standardization. (2023). Plain language: Part 1. Governing principles and guidelines (ISO Standard No. 24495-1:2023). iso.org ↗
- Government Digital Service. (n.d.-d). Use clear language. GOV.UK content and publishing guidance. Retrieved September 17, 2026, from guidance.publishing.service.gov.uk ↗
- General Services Administration. (n.d.). Paraphrase testing. Digital.gov plain language guide series. Retrieved September 17, 2026, from digital.gov ↗
|
|---|
| Planning fallacy | The tendency to forecast from the details of one plan and underestimate time and cost. | | - Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Intuitive prediction: Biases and corrective procedures. In S. Makridakis & S. C. Wheelwright (Eds.), Forecasting (TIMS Studies in the Management Sciences, Vol. 12, pp. 313–327). North-Holland.
- Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). From Nobel Prize to project management: Getting risks right. Project Management Journal, 37(3), 5–15. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Planning poker | An estimating technique in which team members reveal their estimates for a piece of work at the same moment, using numbered cards, then discuss the differences and repeat until they converge. | - R09Agile and Scrum in practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Cohn, M. (2005). Agile estimating and planning. Prentice Hall.
|
|---|
| Platform team | A team that provides shared tools and services, such as the deployment pipeline, hosting and monitoring, as an internal product, so that product teams can release without building these themselves. | - R12DevOps and continuous deliveryFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Skelton, M., & Pais, M. (2019). Team topologies: Organizing business and technology teams for fast flow. IT Revolution Press.
|
|---|
| Policy resistance | The tendency for interventions to be defeated by the system's response to them (Sterman, 2006). | | - Sterman, J. D. (2006). Learning from evidence in a complex world. American Journal of Public Health, 96(3), 505–514. doi ↗
- Merton, R. K. (1936). The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. American Sociological Review, 1(6), 894–904. doi ↗
- Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer (D. Wright, Ed.). Chelsea Green.
|
|---|
| Population | The whole group a conclusion is meant to apply to. | | - Spiegelhalter, D. (2019). The art of statistics: Learning from data. Pelican.
|
|---|
| Postmortem | A written record of an incident, its impact, the actions taken, its causes and the follow-up to prevent it recurring (Lunney & Lueder, 2016). | | - Lunney, J., & Lueder, S. (2016). Postmortem culture: Learning from failure. In B. Beyer, C. Jones, J. Petoff, & N. R. Murphy (Eds.), Site reliability engineering: How Google runs production systems. O'Reilly Media. sre.google ↗
- Beyer, B., Jones, C., Petoff, J., & Murphy, N. R. (Eds.). (2016). Site reliability engineering: How Google runs production systems. O'Reilly Media. sre.google ↗
|
|---|
| Power | The probability a study detects an effect of a given size if it truly exists. | | - Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Greenland, S., Senn, S. J., Rothman, K. J., Carlin, J. B., Poole, C., Goodman, S. N., & Altman, D. G. (2016). Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: A guide to misinterpretations. European Journal of Epidemiology, 31(4), 337–350. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Power and interest grid | A grid that sorts stakeholders by how much they can affect a decision and how much they care about it (Mendelow, 1981). | | - Mendelow, A. L. (1981). Environmental scanning: The impact of the stakeholder concept. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Information Systems. Association for Information Systems. aisel.aisnet.org ↗
|
|---|
| Pre-registration | A dated record of a test's outcome, analysis and decision rule, made before the data arrives. | | - Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366. doi ↗
- Education Endowment Foundation. (2022). Statistical analysis guidance for EEF evaluations. d2tic4wvo1iusb.cloudfront.net ↗
- Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. (n.d.). Registry of Efficacy and Effectiveness Studies (REES). Retrieved September 17, 2026, from icpsr.umich.edu ↗
|
|---|
| Precision | Of the students flagged, the share who really had the outcome. | | - Bowers, A. J., Sprott, R., & Taff, S. A. (2013). Do we know who will drop out? A review of the predictors of dropping out of high school: Precision, sensitivity, and specificity. The High School Journal, 96(2), 77–100. doi ↗
- Fawcett, T. (2006). An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognition Letters, 27(8), 861–874. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Predictive analytics | The use of past data to estimate the probability of a future outcome for each student, such as failing a module or withdrawing. | - R15Learning analyticsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Herodotou, C., Rienties, B., Boroowa, A., Zdrahal, Z., & Hlosta, M. (2019). A large-scale implementation of predictive learning analytics in higher education: The teachers’ role and perspective. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67, 1273–1306. doi ↗
- Macfadyen, L. P., & Dawson, S. (2010). Mining LMS data to develop an “early warning system” for educators: A proof of concept. Computers & Education, 54(2), 588–599. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Pretotype | A mock-up or pretence of a product, cheaper than a prototype, used to test whether people would want and use it before testing whether it can be built. | - R10Lean product developmentFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Savoia, A. (2019). The right it: Why so many ideas fail and how to make sure yours succeed. HarperOne.
|
|---|
| Primacy effect | A short-lived dip in a metric after a change, because experienced users need time to adjust to it. The opposite of the novelty effect. | - R13Experimentation and product analyticsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Kohavi, R., Tang, D., & Xu, Y. (2020). Trustworthy online controlled experiments: A practical guide to A/B testing. Cambridge University Press. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Prime directive | An opening rule for retrospectives, that everyone did the best job they could, given what they knew at the time, which keeps the conversation on the process rather than on blame (Kerth, 2001). | | - Kerth, N. L. (2001). Project retrospectives: A handbook for team reviews. Dorset House.
- Derby, E., & Larsen, D. (2006). Agile retrospectives: Making good teams great. Pragmatic Bookshelf. pragprog.com ↗
|
|---|
| Privacy by design | Building privacy protection into a system from the first design decision, with the most protective settings as the default, instead of adding it after the build. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Cavoukian, A. (2009). Privacy by design: The 7 foundational principles. Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario.
- European Union. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation). Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 1–88.
|
|---|
| Privacy notice | The plain statement given to students and parents of what data is collected, why, who receives it, how long it is kept and what rights they have. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - European Union. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation). Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 1–88.
- Information Commissioner's Office. (2020). Age appropriate design: A code of practice for online services. Information Commissioner's Office.
|
|---|
| Probe | A follow-up question that asks a participant to say more about something they have just said, such as "what happened next?" | - R04Discovery researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Portigal, S. (2023). Interviewing users: How to uncover compelling insights (2nd ed.). Rosenfeld Media. rosenfeldmedia.com ↗
- Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
|
|---|
| Problem | A cause, or potential cause, of one or more incidents (AXELOS, 2019). | | - AXELOS. (2019). ITIL Foundation: ITIL 4 edition. TSO. axelos.com ↗
- Flora, E. (2023b). An overview of the problem management practice in ITIL 4. Beyond20. beyond20.com ↗
|
|---|
| Problem setting | Naming what to attend to and framing the context around it (Schön, 1983). | | - Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
- Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Problem space and solution space | The problem space is everything a team could learn about the need and its setting; the solution space is everything it could build in response. Design thinking explores the first before the second. | - R03Design thinking, used honestlyFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Prentice-Hall. doi ↗
- Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Problem statement | A short statement of who has a problem, what the problem is and why it matters, written without proposing a solution. | - R06Design methods IFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Rosala, M. (2021). Using "How might we" questions to ideate on the right problems. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
- IDEO.org. (2015). The field guide to human-centered design. IDEO.org. designkit.org ↗
|
|---|
| Product | Something maintained and improved over time by a stable team, judged by the outcomes it moves. | | - Kersten, M. (2018). Project to product: How to survive and thrive in the age of digital disruption with the Flow Framework. IT Revolution.
- Cagan, M., Hickman, L., Jones, C., Idiodi, C., & Moore, J. (2024). Transformed: Moving to the product operating model. Wiley.
- Thomas, D. (2018, October 29). Funding product teams, not projects. Defra Digital. defradigital.blog.gov.uk ↗
|
|---|
| Product life cycle | The stages a product passes through from introduction, through growth and maturity, to decline and retirement, each calling for different investment and different measures. | - R01Digital product managementFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Levitt, T. (1965). Exploit the product life cycle. Harvard Business Review, 43(6), 81–94.
|
|---|
| Product manager | The person answerable for what a product team builds and why, who weighs user value against cost and the organisation's aims. Distinct from a project manager, who is answerable for schedule and budget. | - R01Digital product managementFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Cagan, M. (2018). Inspired: How to create tech products customers love (2nd ed.). Wiley.
- Perri, M. (2018). Escaping the build trap: How effective product management creates real value. O'Reilly Media.
|
|---|
| Product operating model | A way of organising technology work around long-lived teams that are given problems to solve and judged by outcomes, in place of projects that are handed features to deliver. | - R01Digital product managementFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Cagan, M., Hickman, L., Jones, C., Idiodi, C., & Moore, J. (2024). Transformed: Moving to the product operating model. Wiley.
- Kersten, M. (2018). Project to product: How to survive and thrive in the age of digital disruption with the Flow Framework. IT Revolution.
|
|---|
| Product operations (product ops) | The function that supports product managers with shared data, user-research logistics, tooling and common processes, so that teams spend their time on decisions. | - R01Digital product managementFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Cagan, M., Hickman, L., Jones, C., Idiodi, C., & Moore, J. (2024). Transformed: Moving to the product operating model. Wiley.
- Perri, M., & Tilles, D. (2023). Product operations: How successful companies build better products at scale. Product Thinking.
|
|---|
| Product Owner | The one person in a Scrum team accountable for the value of the product, who orders the Product Backlog and decides what the team works on next. | - R09Agile and Scrum in practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (2020). The Scrum Guide: The definitive guide to Scrum: The rules of the game. scrumguides.org ↗
|
|---|
| Product quality model | The international model of nine characteristics of software quality, among them functional suitability, reliability, security, maintainability and safety (ISO/IEC, 2023). | | - ISO/IEC. (2023). Systems and software engineering — Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) — Product quality model (ISO/IEC Standard No. 25010:2023). International Organization for Standardization. iso.org ↗
|
|---|
| Product requirements document (PRD) | A document that sets out the problem a feature should solve, who it is for, what it must do and how success will be judged, written before the build begins. | - R01Digital product managementFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Cagan, M. (2018). Inspired: How to create tech products customers love (2nd ed.). Wiley.
|
|---|
| Product strategy | The sequence of problems a team chooses to solve, and those it chooses not to, in order to move from where the product is now towards its vision. | - R01Digital product managementFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Cagan, M. (2018). Inspired: How to create tech products customers love (2nd ed.). Wiley.
- Perri, M. (2018). Escaping the build trap: How effective product management creates real value. O'Reilly Media.
|
|---|
| Product trio | The product, design and engineering leads who run discovery together (Torres, 2021). | | - Torres, T. (2021). Continuous discovery habits: Discover products that create customer value and business value. Product Talk.
|
|---|
| Product vision | A short description of the future the product is meant to bring about for its users, usually three to ten years out, which gives the roadmap its direction. | - R01Digital product managementFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Cagan, M. (2018). Inspired: How to create tech products customers love (2nd ed.). Wiley.
- Lombardo, C. T., McCarthy, B., Ryan, E., & Connors, M. (2017). Product roadmaps relaunched: How to set direction while embracing uncertainty. O'Reilly Media.
|
|---|
| Product–market fit | The point at which a product meets a real need for a defined group well enough that they keep using it, recommend it and would miss it if it went. | - R01Digital product managementFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Cagan, M. (2018). Inspired: How to create tech products customers love (2nd ed.). Wiley.
- Olsen, D. (2015). The lean product playbook: How to innovate with minimum viable products and rapid customer feedback. Wiley. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Production blocking | The loss of ideas in a group because only one person can speak at a time (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987). | | - Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 497–509. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Production environment | The live system that real users rely on, as distinct from the environments used for development and testing. Often shortened to 'production' or 'prod'. | - R12DevOps and continuous deliveryFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Humble, J., & Farley, D. (2010). Continuous delivery: Reliable software releases through build, test, and deployment automation. Addison-Wesley. oreilly.com ↗
|
|---|
| Productive failure | A design in which students attempt problems before instruction, and learn from the attempt (Kapur, 2008). | | - Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379–424. doi ↗
- Sinha, T., & Kapur, M. (2021). When problem solving followed by instruction works: Evidence for productive failure. Review of Educational Research, 91(5), 761–798. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Productive struggle | Effort on the thinking a lesson exists to build, as distinct from effort wasted on confusion. | | - Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379–424. doi ↗
- Sinha, T., & Kapur, M. (2021). When problem solving followed by instruction works: Evidence for productive failure. Review of Educational Research, 91(5), 761–798. doi ↗
- Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2026). Artificial intelligence in education (Last updated July 31, 2026). moe.gov.sg ↗
|
|---|
| Professional development | Structured, facilitated activity for teachers intended to increase their teaching ability (Sims et al., 2021). | | - Sims, S., Fletcher-Wood, H., O'Mara-Eves, A., Cottingham, S., Stansfield, C., Van Herwegen, J., & Anders, J. (2021). What are the characteristics of effective teacher professional development? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Education Endowment Foundation. files.eric.ed.gov ↗
- Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers' professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. doi ↗
- Kennedy, M. M. (2016). How does professional development improve teaching? Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 945–980. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Progressive disclosure | Giving help in increasing steps, with a full solution last and only after an attempt. | | - Department for Education. (2026). Generative AI: Product safety standards (Updated January 19, 2026). GOV.UK. gov.uk ↗
- Bastani, H., Bastani, O., Sungu, A., Ge, H., Kabakcı, Ö., & Mariman, R. (2025). Generative AI without guardrails can harm learning: Evidence from high school mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(26), Article e2422633122. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Project | Temporary work to deliver a defined scope by a date and within a budget. | | - Kersten, M. (2018). Project to product: How to survive and thrive in the age of digital disruption with the Flow Framework. IT Revolution.
- Thomas, D. (2018, October 29). Funding product teams, not projects. Defra Digital. defradigital.blog.gov.uk ↗
- HM Treasury, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, & Government Digital Service. (2025, March 12). Performance review of digital spend. GOV.UK. gov.uk ↗
|
|---|
| Prompt | The instruction and material given to a generative model as input. The model's output depends on it, so wording, examples and supplied context all matter. | - R16AI in learning productsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Liu, P., Yuan, W., Fu, J., Jiang, Z., Hayashi, H., & Neubig, G. (2023). Pre-train, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(9), Article 195. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Proof of concept | A small build made to show that an idea is technically possible, which says little about whether people want it or can use it. | - R07Design methods IIFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Houde, S., & Hill, C. (1997). What do prototypes prototype? In M. Helander, T. K. Landauer, & P. Prabhu (Eds.), Handbook of human-computer interaction (2nd ed., pp. 367–381). Elsevier. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Propensity score matching | A method that pairs participants and non-participants with a similar estimated probability of taking part, given their observed characteristics, to make the groups more comparable. | - R13Experimentation and product analyticsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Proto persona | A persona built from a team's assumptions, with no new research (Laubheimer, 2020). | | - Laubheimer, P. (2020). 3 persona types: Lightweight, qualitative, and statistical. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
- Gothelf, J., & Seiden, J. (2013). Lean UX: Applying lean principles to improve user experience. O'Reilly Media.
|
|---|
| Prototype | Any representation of a design idea, regardless of medium, made to answer a question (Houde & Hill, 1997). R07 Any representation of a design idea, regardless of medium, built to answer a question and then be thrown away (Houde & Hill, 1997). | | - Houde, S., & Hill, C. (1997). What do prototypes prototype? In M. G. Helander, T. K. Landauer, & P. V. Prabhu (Eds.), Handbook of human-computer interaction (2nd ed., pp. 367–381). North-Holland. doi ↗
- Houde, S., & Hill, C. (1997). What do prototypes prototype? In M. Helander, T. K. Landauer, & P. Prabhu (Eds.), Handbook of human-computer interaction (2nd ed., pp. 367–381). Elsevier. doi ↗
- Buxton, B. (2007). Sketching user experiences: Getting the design right and the right design. Morgan Kaufmann. books.google.com ↗
|
|---|
| Proxy | A measure that stands in for something harder to observe, such as time online standing in for effort. | | - Campbell, D. T. (1979). Assessing the impact of planned social change. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2(1), 67–90. doi ↗
- Strathern, M. (1997). ‘Improving ratings’: Audit in the British university system. European Review, 5(3), 305–321. cambridge.org ↗
- Gašević, D., Dawson, S., & Siemens, G. (2015). Let’s not forget: Learning analytics are about learning. TechTrends, 59(1), 64–71. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Pseudonymisation | Replacing names and other identifiers with codes, with the key held separately. The data remains personal data, because whoever holds the key can reverse it. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - European Union. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation). Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 1–88.
- Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. (2014). Opinion 05/2014 on anonymisation techniques (WP 216). European Commission.
|
|---|
| Pull request | A proposal to merge a set of changes from a branch into the main code, which teammates can discuss, review and test before it is accepted. Some tools call it a merge request. | - R11Software development for non-engineersFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Chacon, S., & Straub, B. (2014). Pro Git (2nd ed.). Apress.
- Gousios, G., Pinzger, M., & van Deursen, A. (2014). An exploratory study of the pull-based software development model. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 345–355). ACM. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Pull system | A way of scheduling work in which a step starts a new item only when the step after it signals it has capacity, instead of work being pushed forward to a plan. | - R10Lean product developmentFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (1996). Lean thinking: Banish waste and create wealth in your corporation. Simon & Schuster. lean.org ↗
- Anderson, D. J. (2010). Kanban: Successful evolutionary change for your technology business. Blue Hole Press. books.google.com ↗
|
|---|
| Purpose limitation | Collecting data for specified, explicit purposes and not using it in ways incompatible with them (European Union, 2016). | | - European Union. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 (General Data Protection Regulation). Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 1–88. eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
- Personal Data Protection Commission. (n.d.). Data protection obligations. Retrieved September 17, 2026, from pdpc.gov.sg ↗
|
|---|
| Purposive sampling | Choosing participants deliberately because they can say most about the question, not at random. It is the usual approach in qualitative studies. | - R04Discovery researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). SAGE.
|
|---|
| Pushed-down work | Effort a change moves onto people further down the line, usually in schools. | | - Herd, P., & Moynihan, D. P. (2018). Administrative burden: Policymaking by other means. Russell Sage Foundation. doi ↗
- Selwyn, N., Nemorin, S., & Johnson, N. F. (2017). High-tech, hard work: An investigation of teachers' work in the digital age. Learning, Media and Technology, 42(4), 390–405. doi ↗
|
|---|
| R |
|---|
| R-squared | The proportion of the variation in an outcome that a regression model accounts for, from 0 to 1. A high value does not show that the model is causal. | - R18Basic statistics for educational technologistsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge University Press. doi ↗
- Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). SAGE.
|
|---|
| Randomisation | Assigning units to groups by chance, so groups are balanced on measured and unmeasured factors. | | - Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist's companion. Princeton University Press.
- Pearl, J., & Mackenzie, D. (2018). The book of why: The new science of cause and effect. Basic Books.
|
|---|
| Randomisation unit | The thing chance assigns to a version: a student, a class, a teacher or a school. | | - Kohavi, R., Tang, D., & Xu, Y. (2020). Trustworthy online controlled experiments: A practical guide to A/B testing. Cambridge University Press. doi ↗
- Ritter, S., Murphy, A., Fancsali, S. E., Fitkariwala, V., Patel, N., & Lomas, J. D. (2020). UpGrade: An open source tool to support A/B testing in educational software [Paper presentation]. Workshop on Educational A/B Testing at Scale, Learning @ Scale 2020. upgradeplatform.org ↗
- What Works Clearinghouse. (2022). What Works Clearinghouse procedures and standards handbook, version 5.0 (WWC 2022008). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. ies.ed.gov ↗
|
|---|
| Randomised controlled trial (RCT) | A study that assigns participants at random to an intervention or a control condition, so that a difference in outcomes can be attributed to the intervention. | - R13Experimentation and product analyticsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - What Works Clearinghouse. (2022). What Works Clearinghouse procedures and standards handbook, version 5.0 (WWC 2022008). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. ies.ed.gov ↗
- Torgerson, D. J., & Torgerson, C. J. (2008). Designing randomised trials in health, education and the social sciences: An introduction. Palgrave Macmillan. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Ransomware | Malicious software that encrypts an organisation's files, and often steals a copy, then demands payment for their return. Schools and districts are frequent targets. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2024). The NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 (NIST CSWP 29). National Institute of Standards and Technology. doi ↗
- Cichonski, P., Millar, T., Grance, T., & Scarfone, K. (2012). Computer security incident handling guide (NIST Special Publication 800-61, Rev. 2). National Institute of Standards and Technology. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Rapid prototyping | Building and testing rough working versions early and repeatedly, so that design and evaluation run together instead of one after the other. | - R07Design methods IIFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Tripp, S. D., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 31–44. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Rapid-cycle evaluation | A quick, low-cost study, often a comparison run over weeks with data a school already holds, of whether an education technology is working well enough to keep, change or drop. | - R10Lean product developmentFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Mathematica. (2017, January 24). Providing timely and reliable evidence for schools at no cost [News release]. mathematica.org ↗
|
|---|
| Rapport | The working trust between interviewer and participant that makes a participant willing to speak frankly. | - R04Discovery researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Portigal, S. (2023). Interviewing users: How to uncover compelling insights (2nd ed.). Rosenfeld Media. rosenfeldmedia.com ↗
- Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
|
|---|
| Re-identification | Working out who a record in a supposedly anonymous dataset belongs to, usually by linking it with other data. Small schools and rare characteristics make students easy to single out. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Narayanan, A., & Shmatikov, V. (2008). Robust de-anonymization of large sparse datasets. In 2008 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (pp. 111–125). IEEE. doi ↗
- Sweeney, L. (2002). k-anonymity: A model for protecting privacy. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 10(5), 557–570. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Re-invention | Changes that users make to an innovation as they adopt it. Some re-invention helps a tool fit local conditions; too much removes what made it work. | - R19Adoption and change in schoolsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
- Sharples, J., Eaton, J., & Boughelaf, J. (2024). A school's guide to implementation: Guidance report. Education Endowment Foundation. educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk ↗
|
|---|
| Reaction | Feedback that reports how a design makes someone feel. | | - Connor, A. (2016). 3 kinds of feedback. Discussing Design, Medium. medium.com ↗
- Connor, A., & Irizarry, A. (2015). Discussing design: Improving communication and collaboration through critique. O'Reilly Media. oreilly.com ↗
|
|---|
| Readability formula | A calculation that estimates how hard a text is to read from measures such as sentence length and word length; Flesch Reading Ease is the best known. | - R20Communicating change to schoolsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(3), 221–233. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Readiness for change | How far the people in an organisation are both willing and able to carry out a particular change. It is assessed before a rollout begins. | - R19Adoption and change in schoolsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Sharples, J., Eaton, J., & Boughelaf, J. (2024). A school's guide to implementation: Guidance report. Education Endowment Foundation. educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk ↗
- Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science, 4, Article 67. doi ↗
- Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46(6), 681–703. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Reading age | The age at which a typical reader could understand a text, used as a target when writing for a broad audience. | - R20Communicating change to schoolsFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| Recall bias | Error that arises because people remember past events incompletely or inaccurately, and remember recent or striking events best. | - R04Discovery researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231–259. doi ↗
- Coughlin, S. S. (1990). Recall bias in epidemiologic studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 43(1), 87–91. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Recognition over recall | Designing so users choose from visible options instead of retrieving information from memory. | | - Budiu, R. (2024). Memory recognition and recall in user interfaces. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
- Nielsen, J. (2024). 10 usability heuristics for user interface design. Nielsen Norman Group. (Original work published 1994) nngroup.com ↗
|
|---|
| Record linkage | Matching records that belong to the same person across datasets, using a shared identifier or by comparing details such as name and date of birth. | - R14Data strategy and governanceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Government Accountability Office. (2014). Education and workforce data: Challenges in matching student and worker information raise concerns about longitudinal data systems (GAO-15-27). gao.gov ↗
- Fellegi, I. P., & Sunter, A. B. (1969). A theory for record linkage. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 64(328), 1183–1210. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Recovery point objective (RPO) | The most data, measured as time before a failure, that an organisation accepts losing. An RPO of one hour requires backups or replication at least hourly. | - R12DevOps and continuous deliveryFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Swanson, M., Bowen, P., Phillips, A. W., Gallup, D., & Lynes, D. (2010). Contingency planning guide for federal information systems (NIST Special Publication 800-34 Rev. 1). National Institute of Standards and Technology. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Recovery time objective (RTO) | The longest a service may stay unavailable after a major failure before the harm becomes unacceptable. It sets how fast recovery arrangements must work. | - R12DevOps and continuous deliveryFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Swanson, M., Bowen, P., Phillips, A. W., Gallup, D., & Lynes, D. (2010). Contingency planning guide for federal information systems (NIST Special Publication 800-34 Rev. 1). National Institute of Standards and Technology. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Recurrence | How often a problem that was thought fixed comes back. | | - AXELOS. (2019). ITIL Foundation: ITIL 4 edition. TSO. axelos.com ↗
|
|---|
| Red-teaming | Deliberately trying to make a system fail or behave unsafely, to find problems before users do. | | - National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2024). Artificial intelligence risk management framework: Generative artificial intelligence profile (NIST AI 600-1). U.S. Department of Commerce. doi ↗
- Department for Education. (2026). Generative AI: Product safety standards (Updated January 19, 2026). GOV.UK. gov.uk ↗
|
|---|
| Refactoring | Improving the structure of existing code without changing what it does; a common way to repay technical debt. | | - Cunningham, W. (1992). The WyCash portfolio management system. In Addendum to the proceedings on object-oriented programming systems, languages, and applications (OOPSLA '92) (pp. 29–30). ACM. doi ↗
- Fowler, M. (1999). Refactoring: Improving the design of existing code. Addison-Wesley.
|
|---|
| Reference class forecasting | Forecasting from the outcomes of similar past projects, then adjusting for the case at hand (Flyvbjerg, 2006). | | - Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). From Nobel Prize to project management: Getting risks right. Project Management Journal, 37(3), 5–15. doi ↗
- Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Intuitive prediction: Biases and corrective procedures. In S. Makridakis & S. C. Wheelwright (Eds.), Forecasting (TIMS Studies in the Management Sciences, Vol. 12, pp. 313–327). North-Holland.
|
|---|
| Reference data | Agreed lists of codes and categories used to classify other data, such as school type, year group or ethnicity codes. | - R14Data strategy and governanceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - DAMA International. (2017). DAMA-DMBOK: Data management body of knowledge (2nd ed.). Technics Publications. damadmbok.org ↗
|
|---|
| Reflection-in-action | Thinking about what one is doing while doing it, and adjusting the next move in response to what the situation shows. | - R03Design thinking, used honestlyFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
|
|---|
| Reflective practice | The habit of examining one's own work, during and after it, in order to learn from it and change what one does next. | - R21Professional learning that changes practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
|
|---|
| Reflexive loop | The way beliefs influence what data we select next time, so that an early reading of a few sessions decides what the researcher notices in the rest (Ross, 1994). | | - Ross, R. (1994). The ladder of inference. In P. M. Senge, A. Kleiner, C. Roberts, R. B. Ross, & B. J. Smith, The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. Currency Doubleday. archive.org ↗
|
|---|
| Reflexive thematic analysis | An approach to thematic analysis in which the researcher's interpretation is part of the method (Braun & Clarke, 2021). | | - Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. doi ↗
- Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Reflexivity | The analyst's examination of how their own position, assumptions and choices have shaped what they noticed in the data and what they made of it. | - R06Design methods IFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. doi ↗
- Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Reframing | Replacing the first description of a problem with another that opens different solutions. R06 Shifting semantic perspective in order to see things in a new way, one of the main ways insights are formed (Kolko, 2010). | | - Dorst, K. (2011). The core of 'design thinking' and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521–532. doi ↗
- Kolko, J. (2010). Abductive thinking and sensemaking: The drivers of design synthesis. Design Issues, 26(1), 15–28. doi ↗
- Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design. MIT Press. mitpress.mit.edu ↗
|
|---|
| Regression discontinuity | A design that compares students just above and just below a cutoff, such as a scholarship score, who are otherwise comparable. Only valid near the cutoff (Thistlethwaite & Campbell, 1960). | | - Thistlethwaite, D. L., & Campbell, D. T. (1960). Regression-discontinuity analysis: An alternative to the ex post facto experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(6), 309–317. doi ↗
- Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist's companion. Princeton University Press.
|
|---|
| Regression test | A test re-run after every change to confirm that features which used to work still do. A regression is a fault introduced into something that previously worked. | - R11Software development for non-engineersFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Myers, G. J. (1979). The art of software testing. Wiley.
|
|---|
| Regression to the mean | Extreme results are partly luck, and luck doesn't repeat, so schools chosen because they scored lowest will tend to score higher next time, with or without help. | | - Spiegelhalter, D. (2019). The art of statistics: Learning from data. Pelican.
- Galton, F. (1886). Regression towards mediocrity in hereditary stature. The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 15, 246–263. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Rehearsal | Practising a technique outside the classroom, usually with colleagues playing the students, so that it can be tried and corrected before a real lesson. | - R21Professional learning that changes practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Sims, S., Fletcher-Wood, H., O'Mara-Eves, A., Cottingham, S., Stansfield, C., Van Herwegen, J., & Anders, J. (2021). What are the characteristics of effective teacher professional development? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Education Endowment Foundation. files.eric.ed.gov ↗
- Lampert, M., Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., Ghousseini, H., Turrou, A. C., Beasley, H., Cunard, A., & Crowe, K. (2013). Keeping it complex: Using rehearsals to support novice teacher learning of ambitious teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(3), 226–243. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) | A training stage in which people rate or rank a model's outputs and the model is adjusted towards the responses they prefer. It is how chat assistants are made helpful and polite. | - R16AI in learning productsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C. L., Mishkin, P., Zhang, C., Agarwal, S., Slama, K., Ray, A., Schulman, J., Hilton, J., Kelton, F., Miller, L., Simens, M., Askell, A., Welinder, P., Christiano, P., Leike, J., & Lowe, R. (2022). Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35, 27730–27744. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Reinforcing loop | A feedback loop in which a change feeds back to produce more change in the same direction, giving growth or collapse that speeds up. | - R02Service design and systems thinkingFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer (D. Wright, Ed.). Chelsea Green.
- Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday/Currency.
|
|---|
| Relative advantage | How much better an innovation is seen to be than what it replaces. It is the strongest of Rogers's five predictors of how fast an innovation is adopted. | - R19Adoption and change in schoolsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
|
|---|
| Release | To make a change visible and available to users. | | - Hodgson, P. (2017). Feature toggles (aka feature flags). martinfowler.com. martinfowler.com ↗
|
|---|
| Release candidate | A specific build judged potentially fit for release, which goes to users unchanged unless the remaining stages of testing find a reason to reject it. | - R12DevOps and continuous deliveryFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Humble, J., & Farley, D. (2010). Continuous delivery: Reliable software releases through build, test, and deployment automation. Addison-Wesley. oreilly.com ↗
|
|---|
| Release note | An announcement of the changes in one release, drawn from the changelog and shaped for its readers. | | - Abebe, S. L., Ali, N., & Hassan, A. E. (2016). An empirical study of software release notes. Empirical Software Engineering, 21(3), 1107–1142. doi ↗
- Wu, J., He, H., Gao, K., Xiao, W., Li, J., & Zhou, M. (2024). A comprehensive analysis of challenges and strategies for software release notes on GitHub. Empirical Software Engineering, 29, Article 104. doi ↗
- Lacan, O. (2026). Keep a Changelog (Version 2.0.0). keepachangelog.com ↗
|
|---|
| Reliability | The consistency of a measure across items, occasions or raters. | | - Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. doi ↗
- Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
- Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Remote proctoring | Invigilating an examination through the candidate's own device, using webcam, microphone, screen recording and often automated flagging of suspect behaviour. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Coghlan, S., Miller, T., & Paterson, J. (2021). Good proctor or "Big Brother"? Ethics of online exam supervision technologies. Philosophy & Technology, 34(4), 1581–1606. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Reopen rate | The share of closed tickets that users open again because the answer did not solve their problem. | - R22Support and feedback loopsFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| Replay enactment | A prototype test that replays real, recorded data at its original speed while users role-play a task (Holstein et al., 2019). | | - Holstein, K., McLaren, B. M., & Aleven, V. (2019). Co-designing a real-time classroom orchestration tool to support teacher–AI complementarity. Journal of Learning Analytics, 6(2), 27–52. doi ↗
- Holstein, K., Harpstead, E., Gulotta, R., & Forlizzi, J. (2020). Replay enactments: Exploring possible futures through historical data. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. ACM. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Request for proposal (RFP) | A document a buyer issues to invite suppliers to bid for a piece of work, setting out what is needed and how bids will be judged. | - R01Digital product managementFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Hopson, M., McFadden, V., Refoy, R., & Rouault, A. (Eds.). (2020). De-risking government technology: Federal agency field guide. 18F, U.S. General Services Administration. guides.18f.gov ↗
- Morrison, J. R., Ross, S. M., & Corcoran, R. P. (2014). Fostering market efficiency in K-12 ed-tech procurement. Johns Hopkins University Center for Research and Reform in Education; Digital Promise. digitalpromise.org ↗
|
|---|
| Research repository | A central store of research outputs that others in an organisation can search (Rosala, 2024a). | | - Rosala, M. (2024a). Research repositories for tracking UX research and growing your ResearchOps. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
- Rosala, M. (2024b). Why research repositories fail and how to get them right. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
|
|---|
| Researcher degrees of freedom | The many choices in collecting and analysing data that can push a result towards significance (Simmons et al., 2011). | | - Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366. doi ↗
- Gelman, A., & Loken, E. (2014). The statistical crisis in science. American Scientist, 102(6), 460–465. doi ↗
|
|---|
| ResearchOps | The people, processes and tools that support researchers and let research scale, covering recruitment, consent, tooling, data handling and the sharing of findings. | - R06Design methods IFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Rosala, M. (2024a). Research repositories for tracking UX research and growing your ResearchOps. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
|
|---|
| Resistance to change | Reluctance or refusal to take up a new way of working. It is often a reasonable response to extra effort, unclear benefit or a poor past experience. | - R19Adoption and change in schoolsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61. doi ↗
- Coch, L., & French, J. R. P., Jr. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, 1(4), 512–532. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Response order effect | A change in which answer option people choose caused by the order in which the options are presented, such as favouring the first option in a written list. | - R05Evaluative researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5(3), 213–236. doi ↗
- Pew Research Center. (2021). Writing survey questions. pewresearch.org ↗
|
|---|
| Response rate | The share of the people invited to take a survey who complete it. A low rate is a warning of possible nonresponse bias, not proof of it. | - R05Evaluative researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Groves, R. M., & Peytcheva, E. (2008). The impact of nonresponse rates on nonresponse bias: A meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(2), 167–189. doi ↗
- Davern, M. (2013). Nonresponse rates are a problematic indicator of nonresponse bias in survey research. Health Services Research, 48(3), 905–912. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Responsive design | Building one set of pages whose layout adapts to the width of the screen, using flexible grids, flexible images and media queries. | - R08UX foundations and design systemsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Marcotte, E. (2011). Responsive web design. A Book Apart.
|
|---|
| REST | Representational state transfer: the architectural style of the web, in which clients act on named resources through a small uniform set of requests. Most web APIs today are described as RESTful. | - R11Software development for non-engineersFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Fielding, R. T. (2000). Architectural styles and the design of network-based software architectures [Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Irvine].
- Fielding, R. T., & Taylor, R. N. (2002). Principled design of the modern Web architecture. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, 2(2), 115–150. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Retention schedule | A list of datasets with how long each is kept, why, and who deletes it. | | - Information and Records Management Society. (2019). Academies toolkit: Pupil records guidance. irms.org.uk ↗
- Privacy Technical Assistance Center. (2014). Best practices for data destruction (PTAC-IB-5). U.S. Department of Education. files.eric.ed.gov ↗
- European Union. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 (General Data Protection Regulation). Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 1–88. eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
|
|---|
| Retrieval | Finding passages in an approved library and passing them to a model with the question, a common way to ground answers. | | - Lewis, P., Perez, E., Piktus, A., Petroni, F., Karpukhin, V., Goyal, N., Küttler, H., Lewis, M., Yih, W., Rocktäschel, T., Riedel, S., & Kiela, D. (2020). Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33.
|
|---|
| Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) | A design in which the system first searches a chosen collection of documents and then passes the passages it finds to the model to answer from. | - R16AI in learning productsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Lewis, P., Perez, E., Piktus, A., Petroni, F., Karpukhin, V., Goyal, N., Küttler, H., Lewis, M., Yih, W., Rocktäschel, T., Riedel, S., & Kiela, D. (2020). Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33, 9459–9474.
|
|---|
| Retrospective | A regular meeting at which a team inspects its own way of working and decides what to change. | | - Derby, E., & Larsen, D. (2006). Agile retrospectives: Making good teams great. Pragmatic Bookshelf. pragprog.com ↗
- Kerth, N. L. (2001). Project retrospectives: A handbook for team reviews. Dorset House.
- Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (2020). The Scrum Guide: The definitive guide to Scrum: The rules of the game. scrumguides.org ↗
|
|---|
| RICE scoring | A prioritisation score of reach, impact and confidence multiplied together and divided by effort, useful for comparing many small items (McBride, 2018). | | - McBride, S. (2018, January 5). RICE prioritization framework for product managers. Intercom. intercom.com ↗
|
|---|
| Rich picture | A free-hand drawing of a problem situation showing its people, relationships, conflicts and concerns, made to share understanding before any formal model is drawn. | - R02Service design and systems thinkingFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1990). Soft systems methodology in action. Wiley. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Right to be heard | A child's right to express views freely in all matters affecting them, with those views given due weight in accordance with the child's age and maturity (United Nations, 1989). | | - United Nations. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child (General Assembly resolution 44/25). ohchr.org ↗
- Lundy, L. (2007). ‘Voice’ is not enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal, 33(6), 927–942. doi ↗
- British Educational Research Association. (2024). Ethical guidelines for educational research (5th ed.). bera.ac.uk ↗
|
|---|
| Rising cost of defects | The popular claim that a defect costs up to 100 times more to fix after release; the original data were thin, and 171 projects showed no consistent effect (Menzies et al., 2017). | | - Menzies, T., Nichols, W., Shull, F., & Layman, L. (2017). Are delayed issues harder to resolve? Revisiting cost-to-fix of defects throughout the lifecycle. Empirical Software Engineering, 22(4), 1903–1935. doi ↗
- Bossavit, L. (2015). The leprechauns of software engineering: How folklore turns into fact and what to do about it. Leanpub. leanpub.com ↗
|
|---|
| Riskiest assumption | The belief that is most important to the plan and least supported by evidence. | | - Bland, D. J., & Osterwalder, A. (2019). Testing business ideas: A field guide for rapid experimentation. Wiley. books.google.com ↗
- Bland, D. J. (2020, August 4). How assumptions mapping can focus your teams on running experiments that matter. Strategyzer. strategyzer.com ↗
- Government Digital Service. (2019). How the alpha phase works. GOV.UK Service Manual. gov.uk ↗
|
|---|
| Roadmap | A statement of intent and direction, ideally ordered by certainty rather than by date. | | - Lombardo, C. T., McCarthy, B., Ryan, E., & Connors, M. (2017). Product roadmaps relaunched: How to set direction while embracing uncertainty. O'Reilly Media.
|
|---|
| Rollback | Returning a service to its previous version after a faulty release. | | - Fowler, M. (2010). Blue green deployment. martinfowler.com. martinfowler.com ↗
- Humble, J., & Farley, D. (2010). Continuous delivery: Reliable software releases through build, test, and deployment automation. Addison-Wesley. oreilly.com ↗
|
|---|
| Root cause analysis | A structured investigation that traces a fault back to the underlying conditions that produced it, so that the fix prevents it from returning. | - R22Support and feedback loopsFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| Runbook | Written step-by-step instructions for a routine operational task or for responding to a particular alert, so that whoever is on call can act without working it out afresh. | - R12DevOps and continuous deliveryFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Beyer, B., Jones, C., Petoff, J., & Murphy, N. R. (Eds.). (2016). Site reliability engineering: How Google runs production systems. O'Reilly Media. sre.google ↗
- Limoncelli, T. A., Chalup, S. R., & Hogan, C. J. (2014). The practice of cloud system administration: Designing and operating large distributed systems (Vol. 2). Addison-Wesley.
|
|---|
| S |
|---|
| Sample | The subset of a population actually observed. | | - Spiegelhalter, D. (2019). The art of statistics: Learning from data. Pelican.
|
|---|
| Sample ratio mismatch (SRM) | A split of users between groups that differs from the planned ratio by more than chance allows. It signals a fault in assignment or logging, so the results should not be trusted. | - R13Experimentation and product analyticsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Kohavi, R., Tang, D., & Xu, Y. (2020). Trustworthy online controlled experiments: A practical guide to A/B testing. Cambridge University Press. doi ↗
- Fabijan, A., Gupchup, J., Gupta, S., Omhover, J., Qin, W., Vermeer, L., & Dmitriev, P. (2019). Diagnosing sample ratio mismatch in online controlled experiments: A taxonomy and rules of thumb for practitioners. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining (pp. 2156–2164). ACM. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Sampling frame | The list from which a survey sample is drawn, such as a register of teachers. People missing from the list cannot be selected, whatever the sample size. | - R05Evaluative researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Jr., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2009). Survey methodology (2nd ed.). Wiley.
|
|---|
| SAMR model | Puentedura's four levels of classroom technology use: substitution, augmentation, modification and redefinition. It is widely used in schools, though its research basis is thin. | - R19Adoption and change in schoolsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433–441. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Satisficing | Giving an answer that is good enough rather than accurate, to save effort (Krosnick, 1991). | | - Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5(3), 213–236. doi ↗
- Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63(2), 129–138. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Saturation | The point at which enough data has been collected; one study of 60 interviews found it within the first twelve, which is not a general rule (Guest et al., 2006). | | - Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Say–do gap | The difference between what people report about their behaviour and what they actually do. | | - LaPiere, R. T. (1934). Attitudes vs. actions. Social Forces, 13(2), 230–237. doi ↗
- Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231–259. doi ↗
- Nielsen, J. (2001). First rule of usability? Don't listen to users. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
|
|---|
| Scalability | A system's ability to handle more users, data or requests by adding resources, without being redesigned. Scaling up uses a bigger machine; scaling out uses more machines. | - R11Software development for non-engineersFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Kleppmann, M. (2017). Designing data-intensive applications: The big ideas behind reliable, scalable, and maintainable systems. O'Reilly Media.
|
|---|
| Scale-up | Extending a tool or practice from a few sites to many. In Coburn's account, real scale means depth, sustainability, spread and a shift in ownership, not only numbers. | - R19Adoption and change in schoolsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Greenhalgh, T., Wherton, J., Papoutsi, C., Lynch, J., Hughes, G., A'Court, C., Hinder, S., Fahy, N., Procter, R., & Shaw, S. (2017). Beyond adoption: A new framework for theorizing and evaluating nonadoption, abandonment, and challenges to the scale-up, spread, and sustainability of health and care technologies. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(11), Article e367. doi ↗
- Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) | A scaling framework that promises a common process across many teams, based on ten Lean-Agile principles, and criticised as a return to heavy, prescriptive process (Scaled Agile, n.d.). | | |
|---|
| Scenario | A short written story of a particular person using a product to reach a goal in a particular setting, used to think through a design before building it. | - R07Design methods IIFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Carroll, J. M. (2000). Making use: Scenario-based design of human-computer interactions. MIT Press. doi ↗
|
|---|
| School official exception | The FERPA provision that lets a school share education records with a vendor without parental consent, if the vendor does a job the school would otherwise do, under the school's direct control. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Family Educational Rights and Privacy, 34 C.F.R. Part 99.
|
|---|
| Scope creep | The gradual, unplanned growth of what a piece of work is expected to deliver, without matching changes to time, budget or people. | - R01Digital product managementFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Project Management Institute. (2021). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide) (7th ed.).
|
|---|
| Screen reader | Software that reads out the content and controls of a screen as speech, or sends them to a braille display, for people who are blind or have low vision. | - R08UX foundations and design systemsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - World Wide Web Consortium. (2023). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 (W3C Recommendation). w3.org ↗
- Horton, S., & Quesenbery, W. (2013). A web for everyone: Designing accessible user experiences. Rosenfeld Media.
|
|---|
| Screener | A short set of questions put to possible participants before a study, used to select those who fit the recruitment criteria and leave out those who do not. | - R04Discovery researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Government Digital Service. (2020). Find user research participants. GOV.UK Service Manual. gov.uk ↗
- Portigal, S. (2023). Interviewing users: How to uncover compelling insights (2nd ed.). Rosenfeld Media. rosenfeldmedia.com ↗
|
|---|
| Scrum | A framework founded on empiricism and lean thinking, with three accountabilities, five events and three artefacts, whose events create points where a team can inspect and adapt (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2020). | | - Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (2020). The Scrum Guide: The definitive guide to Scrum: The rules of the game. scrumguides.org ↗
- Takeuchi, H., & Nonaka, I. (1986). The new new product development game. Harvard Business Review, 64(1), 137–146.
|
|---|
| Scrum Master | The person in a Scrum team accountable for how well the team uses Scrum, who coaches the team and helps remove whatever is blocking its progress. | - R09Agile and Scrum in practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (2020). The Scrum Guide: The definitive guide to Scrum: The rules of the game. scrumguides.org ↗
|
|---|
| Scrum of Scrums | A short, regular meeting of representatives from several Scrum teams working on the same product, held to coordinate their work and resolve dependencies between them. | - R09Agile and Scrum in practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Schwaber, K. (2004). Agile project management with Scrum. Microsoft Press. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Second-order barrier | An internal obstacle, such as beliefs about teaching or confidence (Ertmer, 1999). | | - Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61. doi ↗
- Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Seductive details | Interesting and irrelevant information added to a lesson; learners given it tended to perform worse than those who learned without it (Sundararajan & Adesope, 2020). | | - Sundararajan, N., & Adesope, O. (2020). Keep it coherent: A meta-analysis of the seductive details effect. Educational Psychology Review, 32(3), 707–734. doi ↗
- Mayer, R. E. (2024). The past, present, and future of the cognitive theory of multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review, 36(1), Article 8. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Selection bias | Distortion that arises when the people in a sample or a comparison group differ systematically from those they are meant to represent, such as schools that volunteered for a pilot. | - R18Basic statistics for educational technologistsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist's companion. Princeton University Press.
- Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47(1), 153–161. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Self-regulated learning (SRL) | Learning in which students set goals, plan, monitor their progress and adjust their approach. Much learning analytics research tries to measure or support it. | - R15Learning analyticsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Gašević, D., Dawson, S., & Siemens, G. (2015). Let’s not forget: Learning analytics are about learning. TechTrends, 59(1), 64–71. doi ↗
- Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Self-service | Support that users get for themselves, through help articles, guided fixes or account tools, without contacting a person. | - R22Support and feedback loopsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Government Digital Service. (2016). Set up and manage user support. GOV.UK Service Manual. gov.uk ↗
|
|---|
| Semantic and latent coding | Semantic coding records what participants said, at face value. Latent coding records the assumptions and ideas that lie beneath what was said. | - R06Design methods IFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Semantic versioning | A version numbering scheme of major, minor and patch numbers that signals whether a release breaks existing use (Preston-Werner, n.d.). | | - Preston-Werner, T. (n.d.). Semantic versioning 2.0.0. Retrieved September 17, 2026, from semver.org ↗
- Government Digital Service. (n.d.-c). Versioning [GOV.UK Frontend documentation]. GitHub. Retrieved September 17, 2026, from github.com ↗
|
|---|
| Semi-structured interview | An interview that follows a prepared list of topics but lets the interviewer change the order and follow up on whatever the participant raises. | - R04Discovery researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Portigal, S. (2023). Interviewing users: How to uncover compelling insights (2nd ed.). Rosenfeld Media. rosenfeldmedia.com ↗
- Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2015). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). SAGE.
|
|---|
| Sense of urgency | A shared belief that a change is needed now. Kotter makes establishing it the first step of a change effort, before any solution is announced. | - R20Communicating change to schoolsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59–67. hbr.org ↗
- Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Harvard Business School Press. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Sensegiving | A leader's attempt to shape how others interpret a change, by offering a preferred account of what it means and why it matters. | - R20Communicating change to schoolsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431. doi ↗
- Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433–448. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Sensemaking | The process by which people interpret a change in light of what they already know and do (Spillane et al., 2002). | | - Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431. doi ↗
- Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145–170. doi ↗
- Coburn, C. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476–509. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Sensitivity | Of the students who had the outcome, the share the flag caught. | | - Bowers, A. J., Sprott, R., & Taff, S. A. (2013). Do we know who will drop out? A review of the predictors of dropping out of high school: Precision, sensitivity, and specificity. The High School Journal, 96(2), 77–100. doi ↗
- Fawcett, T. (2006). An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognition Letters, 27(8), 861–874. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Sensitivity and specificity | Sensitivity is the share of students who need help that a tool catches; specificity is the share of those who don't that it clears. No threshold removes the trade-off between them. | | - Gigerenzer, G., Gaissmaier, W., Kurz-Milcke, E., Schwartz, L. M., & Woloshin, S. (2007). Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 8(2), 53–96. doi ↗
- Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., & Friedman, J. (2009). The elements of statistical learning: Data mining, inference, and prediction (2nd ed.). Springer.
|
|---|
| Sequential testing | Methods that allow a running experiment to be analysed at planned or repeated points and stopped early, while keeping the false positive rate at its stated level. | - R13Experimentation and product analyticsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Johari, R., Koomen, P., Pekelis, L., & Walsh, D. (2022). Always valid inference: Continuous monitoring of A/B tests. Operations Research, 70(3), 1806–1821. doi ↗
- Wald, A. (1947). Sequential analysis. John Wiley & Sons. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Serial reproduction | Experiments in which material is retold from one person to the next; they suggest familiar material survives retelling better than unfamiliar material (Ost et al., 2022). | | - Ost, J., Udell, J., Dear, S., Zinken, J., Blank, H., & Costall, A. (2022). The serial reproduction of an urban myth: Revisiting Bartlett's schema theory. Memory, 30(6), 775–783. doi ↗
- Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge University Press. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Service | Everything that has to happen for a user to get what they came for, across people, rules and systems. | | - Downe, L. (2020). Good services: How to design services that work. BIS Publishers. good.services ↗
- Government Digital Service. (2019). Service Standard. GOV.UK. gov.uk ↗
- Polaine, A., Løvlie, L., & Reason, B. (2013). Service design: From insight to implementation. Rosenfeld Media.
|
|---|
| Service blueprint | A diagram that lines up user actions with the frontstage, backstage and supporting work behind them. | | - Shostack, G. L. (1984). Designing services that deliver. Harvard Business Review, 62(1), 133–139. hbr.org ↗
- Bitner, M. J., Ostrom, A. L., & Morgan, F. N. (2008). Service blueprinting: A practical technique for service innovation. California Management Review, 50(3), 66–94. doi ↗
- Gibbons, S. (2017, August 27). Service blueprints: Definition. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
|
|---|
| Service catalogue | The published list of services a provider offers, with what each includes, who may ask for it and how. | - R22Support and feedback loopsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - AXELOS. (2019). ITIL Foundation: ITIL 4 edition. TSO. axelos.com ↗
|
|---|
| Service design | The work of making the whole service visible, its people, rules, handovers and other systems as well as screens, and of treating rules, forms and deadlines as design material. | | - Polaine, A., Løvlie, L., & Reason, B. (2013). Service design: From insight to implementation. Rosenfeld Media.
- Stickdorn, M., Hormess, M. E., Lawrence, A., & Schneider, J. (2018). This is service design doing: Applying service design thinking in the real world. O'Reilly Media.
- Downe, L. (2020). Good services: How to design services that work. BIS Publishers. good.services ↗
|
|---|
| Service desk | The single point of contact between a service provider and its users, which receives incidents and requests and sees them through to resolution. | - R22Support and feedback loopsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - AXELOS. (2019). ITIL Foundation: ITIL 4 edition. TSO. axelos.com ↗
|
|---|
| Service level | A target for how quickly a type of request will be answered or resolved. | | - Government Digital Service. (2016). Set up and manage user support. GOV.UK Service Manual. gov.uk ↗
- Department for Education. (2026). IT support standards for schools and colleges. In Meeting digital and technology standards in schools and colleges. GOV.UK. gov.uk ↗
|
|---|
| Service level agreement (SLA) | A documented agreement between a service provider and a customer that states the services to be provided and the levels of service expected, such as response and resolution times. | - R22Support and feedback loopsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - AXELOS. (2019). ITIL Foundation: ITIL 4 edition. TSO. axelos.com ↗
- International Organization for Standardization. (2018). Information technology — Service management — Part 1: Service management system requirements (ISO/IEC 20000-1:2018).
|
|---|
| Service level indicator (SLI) | A defined measure of some aspect of a service, such as the share of logins that succeed. | | - Beyer, B., Jones, C., Petoff, J., & Murphy, N. R. (Eds.). (2016). Site reliability engineering: How Google runs production systems. O'Reilly Media. sre.google ↗
|
|---|
| Service level objective (SLO) | A target value for a service level indicator, such as 99.9% of logins succeeding each month. | | - Beyer, B., Jones, C., Petoff, J., & Murphy, N. R. (Eds.). (2016). Site reliability engineering: How Google runs production systems. O'Reilly Media. sre.google ↗
|
|---|
| Service recovery | What an organisation does to put things right after it has failed a user: acknowledging the failure, fixing it, and making up for the trouble caused. | - R22Support and feedback loopsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Hart, C. W. L., Heskett, J. L., & Sasser, W. E., Jr. (1990). The profitable art of service recovery. Harvard Business Review, 68(4), 148–156.
|
|---|
| Service request | A user's request for something that is a normal part of the service, such as a password reset or a new account, as distinct from a report of a fault. | - R22Support and feedback loopsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - AXELOS. (2019). ITIL Foundation: ITIL 4 edition. TSO. axelos.com ↗
|
|---|
| Service safari | A research exercise in which team members use a service themselves, as its customers would, and record what they meet along the way. | - R02Service design and systems thinkingFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Stickdorn, M., & Schneider, J. (Eds.). (2010). This is service design thinking: Basics, tools, cases. BIS Publishers.
- Stickdorn, M., Hormess, M. E., Lawrence, A., & Schneider, J. (2018). This is service design doing: Applying service design thinking in the real world. O'Reilly Media.
|
|---|
| Service-dominant logic | The view that all economic exchange is an exchange of service, that goods are only a means of delivering it, and that value is created jointly with the user in use. | - R02Service design and systems thinkingFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Servicescape | The physical setting in which a service is delivered, including its layout, signs and atmosphere, considered for its effect on users and staff. | - R02Service design and systems thinkingFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 57–71. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Set-based design | Developing several design options in parallel and eliminating them gradually as evidence arrives, instead of choosing one early and reworking it. Also called set-based concurrent engineering. | - R10Lean product developmentFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Poppendieck, M., & Poppendieck, T. (2003). Lean software development: An agile toolkit. Addison-Wesley. informit.com ↗
- Ward, A. C. (2007). Lean product and process development. Lean Enterprise Institute.
- Morgan, J. M., & Liker, J. K. (2006). The Toyota product development system: Integrating people, process, and technology. Productivity Press.
|
|---|
| Severity level | A grade given to a fault according to how many users it affects and how badly, which sets how fast it must be handled. | - R22Support and feedback loopsFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| Severity rating | A grade given to each usability problem, usually based on how many users it affects and how badly, used to decide which problems to fix first. | - R05Evaluative researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Sauro, J., & Lewis, J. R. (2016). Quantifying the user experience: Practical statistics for user research (2nd ed.). Morgan Kaufmann. shop.elsevier.com ↗
- Dumas, J. S., & Redish, J. C. (1999). A practical guide to usability testing (Rev. ed.). Intellect.
|
|---|
| Shadowing | Following one person through their working day and recording what they do, where, with whom and with what tools. | - R04Discovery researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| - McDonald, S. (2005). Studying actions in context: A qualitative shadowing method for organizational research. Qualitative Research, 5(4), 455–473. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Shelfware | Software that has been bought and licensed but is never or barely used. | - R19Adoption and change in schoolsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Glimpse K12. (2019, May 15). Glimpse K12 analysis of school spending shows that two-thirds of software license purchases go unused [Press release]. GlobeNewswire. globenewswire.com ↗
- Wood, C. (2018). Most educational software licenses go unused in K-12 districts. EdScoop. edscoop.com ↗
|
|---|
| Shifting the burden | A pattern in which easy fixes relieve symptoms and weaken the fundamental solution (Senge, 1990). | | - Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday/Currency.
- Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer (D. Wright, Ed.). Chelsea Green.
|
|---|
| Signifier | Any perceivable indicator that communicates appropriate behaviour to a person (Norman, 2013). | | - Norman, D. (2013). The design of everyday things (Rev. and expanded ed.). Basic Books. basicbooks.com ↗
- Norman, D. A. (2008). Signifiers, not affordances. Interactions, 15(6), 18–19.
|
|---|
| Silent failure | A fault that users meet and work around without reporting it. | | - Goodman, J. (1999). Basic facts on customer complaint behavior and the impact of service on the bottom line. Competitive Advantage, June, 1–5. newtoncomputing.com ↗
- Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Harvard University Press. hup.harvard.edu ↗
|
|---|
| Simpson's paradox | A pattern that appears in every subgroup but reverses or vanishes when the subgroups are combined, because the groups differ in size or make-up. | - R18Basic statistics for educational technologistsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Charig, C. R., Webb, D. R., Payne, S. R., & Wickham, J. E. A. (1986). Comparison of treatment of renal calculi by open surgery, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. BMJ, 292(6524), 879–882. doi ↗
- Pearl, J., & Mackenzie, D. (2018). The book of why: The new science of cause and effect. Basic Books.
- Simpson, E. H. (1951). The interpretation of interaction in contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 13(2), 238–241. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Single Ease Question (SEQ) | A one-item questionnaire given straight after a task, asking the user to rate how difficult or easy it was on a seven-point scale. | - R05Evaluative researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Sauro, J., & Lewis, J. R. (2016). Quantifying the user experience: Practical statistics for user research (2nd ed.). Morgan Kaufmann. shop.elsevier.com ↗
- Sauro, J., & Dumas, J. S. (2009). Comparison of three one-question, post-task usability questionnaires. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1599–1608). ACM. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Single point of failure | A part of a system with no backup, whose failure stops the whole service. Reliable designs remove them by duplicating components. | - R11Software development for non-engineersFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Kleppmann, M. (2017). Designing data-intensive applications: The big ideas behind reliable, scalable, and maintainable systems. O'Reilly Media.
|
|---|
| Single sign-on (SSO) | One login, usually the school's or ministry's identity service, that opens many applications, so that accounts are created, checked and closed in one place. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Hardt, D. (Ed.). (2012). The OAuth 2.0 authorization framework (RFC 6749). Internet Engineering Task Force. doi ↗
- Grassi, P. A., Garcia, M. E., & Fenton, J. L. (2017). Digital identity guidelines (NIST Special Publication 800-63-3). National Institute of Standards and Technology. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Site reliability engineering (SRE) | Google's approach to operations, which treats running a service as a software engineering problem: reliability targets are explicit, releases are governed by error budgets and repetitive work is automated away. | - R12DevOps and continuous deliveryFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Beyer, B., Jones, C., Petoff, J., & Murphy, N. R. (Eds.). (2016). Site reliability engineering: How Google runs production systems. O'Reilly Media. sre.google ↗
|
|---|
| Sketch | A quick, cheap, disposable representation made to explore rather than to confirm (Buxton, 2007). R07 A quick, cheap, disposable drawing made to explore an idea rather than confirm it (Buxton, 2007). | | - Buxton, B. (2007). Sketching user experiences: Getting the design right and the right design. Morgan Kaufmann. books.google.com ↗
- Hartmann, B. (2009). Gaining design insight through interaction prototyping tools [Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University]. people.eecs.berkeley.edu ↗
- Tohidi, M., Buxton, W., Baecker, R., & Sellen, A. (2006). Getting the right design and the design right: Testing many is better than one. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1243–1252). ACM. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Skew | Lopsidedness in a distribution, with a long tail on one side. In skewed data such as time spent on a platform, the mean and the median can differ widely. | - R18Basic statistics for educational technologistsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Spiegelhalter, D. (2019). The art of statistics: Learning from data. Pelican.
|
|---|
| Slips and mistakes | Two kinds of user error. A slip is the right intention carried out wrongly, such as a mis-tap; a mistake is the wrong intention, formed from a faulty understanding. | - R08UX foundations and design systemsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Norman, D. (2013). The design of everyday things (Rev. and expanded ed.). Basic Books. basicbooks.com ↗
- Reason, J. (1990). Human error. Cambridge University Press. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Sludge | Friction in a process, such as needless forms, waiting or repeated proof, that makes it harder for people to get something they want or are entitled to. | - R02Service design and systems thinkingFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Herd, P., & Moynihan, D. P. (2018). Administrative burden: Policymaking by other means. Russell Sage Foundation. doi ↗
- Sunstein, C. R. (2021). Sludge: What stops us from getting things done and what to do about it. MIT Press. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Small batches | Work broken into pieces that take hours to a couple of days, which shortens the time to feedback and makes problems easier to find and fix (DORA, 2025). | | - DORA. (2025). Capabilities: Working in small batches. Google Cloud. dora.dev ↗
- Forsgren, N., Humble, J., & Kim, G. (2018). Accelerate: The science of lean software and DevOps: Building and scaling high performing technology organizations. IT Revolution. itrevolution.com ↗
|
|---|
| Smoke test | A short set of checks run straight after a deployment to confirm the system starts and its most important functions respond, before anything more thorough is tried. | - R12DevOps and continuous deliveryFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Humble, J., & Farley, D. (2010). Continuous delivery: Reliable software releases through build, test, and deployment automation. Addison-Wesley. oreilly.com ↗
|
|---|
| Snowball sampling | Recruiting by asking each participant to suggest others. It reaches groups that are hard to find, but tends to return people who resemble those already recruited. | - R04Discovery researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Goodman, L. A. (1961). Snowball sampling. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 32(1), 148–170. doi ↗
|
|---|
| SOC 2 | An independent auditor's report on a service provider's controls for security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality and privacy. Type 1 covers design at a date; Type 2 covers operation over a period. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (2017). Trust services criteria for security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, and privacy. AICPA.
|
|---|
| Social desirability | The pull towards answers that sound right or please the person asking. | | - Nielsen, J. (2001). First rule of usability? Don't listen to users. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
- Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(4), 349–354. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Social network analysis (SNA) | The study of patterns of connection between people. In learning analytics it maps who interacts with whom, for example in discussion forums. | - R15Learning analyticsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge University Press. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Sociotechnical system | A system in which people, their working arrangements and their technology depend on one another, so that changing the technology alone changes the work in ways nobody planned. | - R02Service design and systems thinkingFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Norman, D. A., & Stappers, P. J. (2015). DesignX: Complex sociotechnical systems. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 1(2), 83–106. doi ↗
- Trist, E. L., & Bamforth, K. W. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal-getting. Human Relations, 4(1), 3–38. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Soft systems methodology | An approach to messy organisational problems in which the people involved build and compare models of the purposeful activity each of them sees, to agree changes all can accept. | - R02Service design and systems thinkingFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Checkland, P. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. Wiley.
|
|---|
| Software architecture | The main parts of a system, how they connect, and the early decisions about them that are costly to change later. It largely decides qualities such as speed, reliability and ease of change. | - R11Software development for non-engineersFrom the field · not in the guide
| - ISO/IEC. (2023). Systems and software engineering — Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) — Product quality model (ISO/IEC Standard No. 25010:2023). International Organization for Standardization. iso.org ↗
- Bass, L., Clements, P., & Kazman, R. (1998). Software architecture in practice. Addison-Wesley.
|
|---|
| Software as a service (SaaS) | Software that the supplier runs on its own cloud infrastructure and customers use over the internet, usually by subscription, with nothing to install or upgrade themselves. | - R11Software development for non-engineersFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Mell, P., & Grance, T. (2011). The NIST definition of cloud computing (NIST Special Publication 800-145). National Institute of Standards and Technology. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Solutionism | The habit of recasting complex social situations as neat problems with technical fixes (Morozov, 2013). | | - Morozov, E. (2013). To save everything, click here: The folly of technological solutionism. PublicAffairs.
|
|---|
| Spacing | Spreading learning across separate sessions rather than massing it in one (Cepeda et al., 2006). | | - Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354–380. doi ↗
- Sims, S., Fletcher-Wood, H., O'Mara-Eves, A., Cottingham, S., Stansfield, C., Van Herwegen, J., & Anders, J. (2021). What are the characteristics of effective teacher professional development? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Education Endowment Foundation. files.eric.ed.gov ↗
|
|---|
| Spatial contiguity principle | People learn better when words and pictures are presented near rather than far from each other on the page or screen (Mayer, 2024). | | - Mayer, R. E. (2024). The past, present, and future of the cognitive theory of multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review, 36(1), Article 8. doi ↗
- Mayer, R. E. (2021). Multimedia learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Special category data | Kinds of personal data given extra legal protection because misuse does serious harm, such as health, ethnicity, religion and biometric data. Special educational needs records usually fall here. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - European Union. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation). Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 1–88.
|
|---|
| Speculative design | Design work that makes objects and scenarios from possible futures, not for sale or use but to prompt debate about which futures people want. | - R03Design thinking, used honestlyFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative everything: Design, fiction, and social dreaming. MIT Press.
|
|---|
| Spike | A short, timeboxed piece of work done to answer a technical or design question so that a later story can be estimated or built with less risk. | - R09Agile and Scrum in practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Cohn, M. (2004). User stories applied: For agile software development. Addison-Wesley. mountaingoatsoftware.com ↗
- Beck, K., & Andres, C. (2004). Extreme programming explained: Embrace change (2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley.
|
|---|
| Sprint | A fixed period of one month or less in which a Scrum team works towards a Sprint Goal. | | - Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (2020). The Scrum Guide: The definitive guide to Scrum: The rules of the game. scrumguides.org ↗
- Schwaber, K., & Beedle, M. (2002). Agile software development with Scrum. Prentice Hall. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Sprint Goal | The single objective a Scrum team commits to for a sprint, which gives the chosen backlog items a shared purpose. | - R09Agile and Scrum in practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (2020). The Scrum Guide: The definitive guide to Scrum: The rules of the game. scrumguides.org ↗
|
|---|
| Sprint Planning | The event that opens a sprint, at which the Scrum team agrees why the sprint matters, which backlog items it will take on and how the work will be done. | - R09Agile and Scrum in practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (2020). The Scrum Guide: The definitive guide to Scrum: The rules of the game. scrumguides.org ↗
|
|---|
| Sprint Review | The Scrum event at which the team and stakeholders inspect the outcome of a sprint and decide what to adapt. | | - Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (2020). The Scrum Guide: The definitive guide to Scrum: The rules of the game. scrumguides.org ↗
- Government Digital Service. (2016, May 23). Governance principles for agile service delivery. GOV.UK Service Manual. gov.uk ↗
|
|---|
| Stage-gate process | A way of running product development as a fixed series of stages, each ending in a review at which managers approve, stop or send back the work. | - R01Digital product managementFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Cooper, R. G. (1990). Stage-gate systems: A new tool for managing new products. Business Horizons, 33(3), 44–54. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Staged rollout | Opening a deployed change by feature flag to staff, then pilot schools, then half of schools, then everyone, and switching the flag off if a signal goes wrong. | | |
|---|
| Stages of concern | Seven stages describing what a person worries about as they meet a change, from unconcerned to refocusing (Hall & Hord, 2014). R20 A model of how people's concerns about a change shift, from information and personal impact towards consequences and refinement (Hall & Hord, 2014). | | - Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2014). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes (4th ed.). Pearson. pearson.com ↗
- American Institutes for Research. (n.d.). Stages of concern: Concerns-Based Adoption Model. Retrieved September 17, 2026, from air.org ↗
|
|---|
| Staging environment | A copy of the live system, made as similar to it as practical, where a release is rehearsed and checked before it goes to production. | - R12DevOps and continuous deliveryFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Humble, J., & Farley, D. (2010). Continuous delivery: Reliable software releases through build, test, and deployment automation. Addison-Wesley. oreilly.com ↗
|
|---|
| Stakeholder interview | An interview with someone inside the organisation or its partners, held to learn the project's goals, constraints and politics before research with users begins. | - R04Discovery researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| Stakeholder map | A diagram of the people and organisations involved in or affected by a service, arranged to show their relationships to one another and to the user. | - R02Service design and systems thinkingFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Stickdorn, M., Hormess, M. E., Lawrence, A., & Schneider, J. (2018). This is service design doing: Applying service design thinking in the real world. O'Reilly Media.
- Stickdorn, M., & Schneider, J. (Eds.). (2010). This is service design thinking: Basics, tools, cases. BIS Publishers.
|
|---|
| Standard deviation | Roughly the typical distance of values from their mean. | | - Spiegelhalter, D. (2019). The art of statistics: Learning from data. Pelican.
- Kunin, D., Guo, J., Devlin, T. D., & Xiang, D. (n.d.). Seeing theory: A visual introduction to probability and statistics. Brown University. seeing-theory.brown.edu ↗
|
|---|
| Standard error | The typical wobble of an estimate across repeated samples. Shrinks with the square root of sample size. | | - Cumming, G. (2014). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science, 25(1), 7–29. doi ↗
- Spiegelhalter, D. (2019). The art of statistics: Learning from data. Pelican.
|
|---|
| Standard error of measurement | An estimate of how far an observed score might sit from a student's true score, which makes a single score a range, not a point. | | - Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
|
|---|
| Standardised questionnaire | A questionnaire with fixed wording, response scale and scoring, whose reliability and validity have been tested, so that scores can be compared across studies and products. | - R05Evaluative researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Sauro, J., & Lewis, J. R. (2016). Quantifying the user experience: Practical statistics for user research (2nd ed.). Morgan Kaufmann. shop.elsevier.com ↗
|
|---|
| Statistical persona | A persona that adds to interviews a survey of at least 100, and ideally 500 or more, respondents (Laubheimer, 2020). | | - Laubheimer, P. (2020). 3 persona types: Lightweight, qualitative, and statistical. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
- Salminen, J., Guan, K., Jung, S.-G., & Jansen, B. J. (2021). A survey of 15 years of data-driven persona development. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 37(18), 1685–1708. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Statistical significance | A p-value below a chosen threshold, conventionally 0.05. A convention, not a verdict. | | - Wasserstein, R. L., & Lazar, N. A. (2016). The ASA statement on p-values: Context, process, and purpose. The American Statistician, 70(2), 129–133. doi ↗
- Greenland, S., Senn, S. J., Rothman, K. J., Carlin, J. B., Poole, C., Goodman, S. N., & Altman, D. G. (2016). Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: A guide to misinterpretations. European Journal of Epidemiology, 31(4), 337–350. doi ↗
- Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Status page | A public page showing whether each part of a service is working, with updates on current incidents and planned maintenance. | - R22Support and feedback loopsFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| Statutory guidance | Guidance issued under a legal power, which schools must have regard to and need a good reason to depart from. | - R20Communicating change to schoolsFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| Steward | The person who defines a dataset's fields and maintains its quality day to day. | | - Privacy Technical Assistance Center. (2015). Data governance and stewardship (Rev. ed.). U.S. Department of Education. studentprivacy.ed.gov ↗
- DAMA International. (2017). DAMA-DMBOK: Data management body of knowledge (2nd ed.). Technics Publications. damadmbok.org ↗
|
|---|
| Stock and flow | A stock is a quantity that builds up or drains over time, such as unmarked scripts; flows are the rates that fill and empty it. Stocks change only through their flows. | - R02Service design and systems thinkingFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer (D. Wright, Ed.). Chelsea Green.
- Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. McGraw-Hill.
|
|---|
| Storage limitation | Keeping identifiable personal data no longer than its purpose requires (European Union, 2016). | | - European Union. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 (General Data Protection Regulation). Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 1–88. eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
- Personal Data Protection Commission. (n.d.). Data protection obligations. Retrieved September 17, 2026, from pdpc.gov.sg ↗
|
|---|
| Story mapping | Arranging user stories in two dimensions, with the steps of a user's activity across the top and detail beneath, so releases can be cut as slices across the whole journey. | - R09Agile and Scrum in practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Patton, J. (2014). User story mapping: Discover the whole story, build the right product. O'Reilly Media.
|
|---|
| Story points | A unit for estimating the relative size of a piece of work, combining effort, complexity and uncertainty, instead of estimating in hours or days. | - R09Agile and Scrum in practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Cohn, M. (2005). Agile estimating and planning. Prentice Hall.
|
|---|
| Storyboard | A sequence of drawn frames showing a person using a product in context over time, used to explore and explain a situation of use before any screens are designed. | - R07Design methods IIFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Buxton, B. (2007). Sketching user experiences: Getting the design right and the right design. Morgan Kaufmann. books.google.com ↗
- Truong, K. N., Hayes, G. R., & Abowd, G. D. (2006). Storyboarding: An empirical determination of best practices and effective guidelines. In Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (pp. 12–21). ACM. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Stratified randomisation | Random assignment carried out separately within groups defined by a key characteristic, such as school or prior attainment, so that the arms are balanced on it. | - R13Experimentation and product analyticsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Torgerson, D. J., & Torgerson, C. J. (2008). Designing randomised trials in health, education and the social sciences: An introduction. Palgrave Macmillan. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Street-level bureaucrat | A frontline public worker whose discretion shapes what policy becomes in practice (Lipsky, 2010). | | - Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services (30th anniversary expanded ed.). Russell Sage Foundation. (Original work published 1980) russellsage.org ↗
|
|---|
| Student engagement | A student's involvement in learning, usually split into behavioural, emotional and cognitive parts. Activity data captures mainly the behavioural part. | - R15Learning analyticsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Student retention | The share of students who continue on a course or at an institution from one period to the next. It is the outcome most early-warning systems aim to improve. | - R15Learning analyticsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Arnold, K. E., & Pistilli, M. D. (2012). Course Signals at Purdue: Using learning analytics to increase student success. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 267–270). ACM. doi ↗
- Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Style guide | An organisation's written rules for spelling, terms, punctuation and formatting, kept so that everything it publishes reads consistently. | - R20Communicating change to schoolsFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| Subgroup analysis | Estimating the effect separately for parts of the sample, such as disadvantaged pupils. Subgroups chosen after seeing the data produce many false positives. | - R13Experimentation and product analyticsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Education Endowment Foundation. (2022). Statistical analysis guidance for EEF evaluations. d2tic4wvo1iusb.cloudfront.net ↗
- Kohavi, R., Tang, D., & Xu, Y. (2020). Trustworthy online controlled experiments: A practical guide to A/B testing. Cambridge University Press. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Sunk cost fallacy | The tendency to keep investing in something because of what has already been spent on it, although that money or effort cannot be recovered whatever is decided next. | - R01Digital product managementFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(1), 124–140. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Survey fatigue | Falling willingness to respond as people receive more surveys (Porter et al., 2004). | | - Porter, S. R., Whitcomb, M. E., & Weitzer, W. H. (2004). Multiple surveys of students and survey fatigue. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2004(121), 63–73. doi ↗
|
|---|
| SUS | The System Usability Scale: ten items giving one score from 0 to 100 (Brooke, 1996). | | - Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: A 'quick and dirty' usability scale. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerdmeester, & I. L. McClelland (Eds.), Usability evaluation in industry (pp. 189–194). Taylor & Francis. doi ↗
- Bangor, A., Kortum, P. T., & Miller, J. T. (2008). An empirical evaluation of the System Usability Scale. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 24(6), 574–594. doi ↗
- Bangor, A., Kortum, P., & Miller, J. (2009). Determining what individual SUS scores mean: Adding an adjective rating scale. Journal of Usability Studies, 4(3), 114–123. dl.acm.org ↗
|
|---|
| Sustainable pace | Working at a rate the team could keep up indefinitely, without regular overtime, on the ground that tired teams make more mistakes. | - R09Agile and Scrum in practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Beck, K., Beedle, M., van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., Grenning, J., Highsmith, J., Hunt, A., Jeffries, R., Kern, J., Marick, B., Martin, R. C., Mellor, S., Schwaber, K., Sutherland, J., & Thomas, D. (2001). Manifesto for Agile Software Development. agilemanifesto.org ↗
- Beck, K., & Andres, C. (2004). Extreme programming explained: Embrace change (2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley.
|
|---|
| Sustained duration | Professional learning activities that are ongoing throughout the school year, with 20 hours or more of contact time (Desimone & Garet, 2015). | | - Desimone, L. M., & Garet, M. S. (2015). Best practices in teachers' professional development in the United States. Psychology, Society, & Education, 7(3), 252–263. repositorio.ual.es ↗
- Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945. doi ↗
- Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Swimlane diagram | A process diagram divided into parallel lanes, one for each person, team or system, so that every step shows who does it and every handover shows as a crossing. | - R02Service design and systems thinkingFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Rummler, G. A., & Brache, A. P. (1990). Improving performance: How to manage the white space on the organization chart. Jossey-Bass.
|
|---|
| Synthesis | The work of organising, pruning and filtering research data into a cohesive structure: deciding what the material shows, what it means and what the team should do about it (Kolko, 2010). | | - Kolko, J. (2010). Abductive thinking and sensemaking: The drivers of design synthesis. Design Issues, 26(1), 15–28. doi ↗
|
|---|
| System archetype | A recurring structure of feedback loops that produces the same problem behaviour in many settings, such as fixes that fail or limits to growth. | - R02Service design and systems thinkingFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday/Currency.
- Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer (D. Wright, Ed.). Chelsea Green.
|
|---|
| System of record | The system treated as the authoritative source for a given piece of data. Where copies disagree, its value stands. | - R14Data strategy and governanceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - DAMA International. (2017). DAMA-DMBOK: Data management body of knowledge (2nd ed.). Technics Publications. damadmbok.org ↗
|
|---|
| System prompt | Standing instructions set by a product's developer, usually hidden from the user, that fix the model's role, tone and limits in every conversation. | - R16AI in learning productsFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| Systems thinking | A way of explaining why changing one part of a service so often produces effects somewhere else, and why a well-meant change can make the problem it targets worse. | | - Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer (D. Wright, Ed.). Chelsea Green.
- Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday/Currency.
- OECD. (2017). Systems approaches to public sector challenges: Working with change. OECD Publishing. doi ↗
|
|---|
| T |
|---|
| T-shaped person | Someone with deep skill in one discipline, the upright of the T, and enough breadth and curiosity to work well with people from others, the crossbar. | - R03Design thinking, used honestlyFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. HarperBusiness.
|
|---|
| t-test | A test of whether the difference between two means is larger than chance variation alone would plausibly produce. | - R18Basic statistics for educational technologistsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Student. (1908). The probable error of a mean. Biometrika, 6(1), 1–25. doi ↗
- Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). SAGE.
|
|---|
| Tacit knowledge | Knowledge of their own work practice that people are not consciously aware of, and become aware of only in the doing (Holtzblatt & Beyer, 2013). | | - Holtzblatt, K., & Beyer, H. R. (2013). Contextual design. In M. Soegaard & R. F. Dam (Eds.), The encyclopedia of human-computer interaction (2nd ed.). Interaction Design Foundation. ixdf.org ↗
- Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Doubleday.
|
|---|
| Tag | A label on a ticket that records its underlying cause, so tickets can be counted by cause. | | - Government Digital Service. (2016). Set up and manage user support. GOV.UK Service Manual. gov.uk ↗
- Consortium for Service Innovation. (2016). KCS v6 practices guide. library.serviceinnovation.org ↗
|
|---|
| Tame problem | A problem that can be stated clearly, has a definite end point and can be checked as solved or not, however hard it may be technically. The opposite of a wicked problem. | - R03Design thinking, used honestlyFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Tapper study | A 1990 Stanford study in which people tapping out well-known songs predicted listeners would name about half, and listeners named three of 120, or 2.5% (Newton, 1990). | | - Newton, E. (1990). Overconfidence in the communication of intent: Heard and unheard melodies [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Stanford University.
- Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2007). Made to stick: Why some ideas survive and others die. Random House. heathbrothers.com ↗
- Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G., & Weber, M. (1989). The curse of knowledge in economic settings: An experimental analysis. Journal of Political Economy, 97(5), 1232–1254. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Task scenario | A short, realistic situation given to a usability test participant that states a goal to reach, without naming the steps or the words used on screen. | - R05Evaluative researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Rubin, J., & Chisnell, D. (2008). Handbook of usability testing: How to plan, design, and conduct effective tests (2nd ed.). Wiley.
|
|---|
| Task success | Whether a participant completes a test task, the usual measure of effectiveness. | | - International Organization for Standardization. (2018). Ergonomics of human-system interaction — Part 11: Usability: Definitions and concepts (ISO Standard No. 9241-11:2018). iso.org ↗
- Sauro, J., & Lewis, J. R. (2016). Quantifying the user experience: Practical statistics for user research (2nd ed.). Morgan Kaufmann. shop.elsevier.com ↗
- Sauro, J. (2011). What is a good task-completion rate? MeasuringU. measuringu.com ↗
|
|---|
| Taxonomy | The agreed, controlled set of tags and categories used to label research in a repository, so that different people file and find the same things in the same way. | - R06Design methods IFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Rosala, M. (2024a). Research repositories for tracking UX research and growing your ResearchOps. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
- Rosala, M. (2024b). Why research repositories fail and how to get them right. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
|
|---|
| Teacher self-efficacy | A teacher's belief in their own ability to bring about student engagement and learning, which affects how readily they try and persist with new practices. | - R21Professional learning that changes practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805. doi ↗
- Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Technical debt | The future cost of a shortcut taken now, paid as extra effort on every later change until it is repaid (Cunningham, 1992). | | - Cunningham, W. (1992). The WyCash portfolio management system. In Addendum to the proceedings on object-oriented programming systems, languages, and applications (OOPSLA '92) (pp. 29–30). ACM. doi ↗
- Kruchten, P., Nord, R. L., & Ozkaya, I. (2012). Technical debt: From metaphor to theory and practice. IEEE Software, 29(6), 18–21. doi ↗
- Fowler, M. (2009, October 14). Technical debt quadrant. martinfowler.com. martinfowler.com ↗
|
|---|
| Technical debt quadrant | A sorting of technical debt two ways, reckless or prudent and deliberate or inadvertent; the useful distinction is between prudent and reckless debt (Fowler, 2009). | | - Fowler, M. (2009, October 14). Technical debt quadrant. martinfowler.com. martinfowler.com ↗
- Kruchten, P., Nord, R. L., & Ozkaya, I. (2012). Technical debt: From metaphor to theory and practice. IEEE Software, 29(6), 18–21. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Technology Acceptance Model | Davis's model in which perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use predict use of a system, and ease of use shapes whether a tool seems useful (Davis, 1989). | | - Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. doi ↗
- Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Test automation | Having software run the tests, on every change and without a person starting them, so that a fault is reported within minutes of being introduced. | - R12DevOps and continuous deliveryFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Humble, J., & Farley, D. (2010). Continuous delivery: Reliable software releases through build, test, and deployment automation. Addison-Wesley. oreilly.com ↗
- Forsgren, N., Humble, J., & Kim, G. (2018). Accelerate: The science of lean software and DevOps: Building and scaling high performing technology organizations. IT Revolution. itrevolution.com ↗
|
|---|
| Test plan | The document agreed before a usability study that sets out its purpose, research questions, participants, tasks, measures and schedule. | - R05Evaluative researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Rubin, J., & Chisnell, D. (2008). Handbook of usability testing: How to plan, design, and conduct effective tests (2nd ed.). Wiley.
|
|---|
| Test pyramid | A guide to balancing automated tests: many small unit tests, fewer broad ones (Fowler, 2012). | | |
|---|
| Test-driven development (TDD) | Writing a failing automated test before writing the code that makes it pass, then tidying the code, in short repeated cycles. | - R09Agile and Scrum in practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Beck, K. (2003). Test-driven development: By example. Addison-Wesley. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Testbed | A real setting, such as a group of schools, where education technology is tried out and evaluated under everyday conditions, with teachers, developers and researchers working together. | - R10Lean product developmentFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Batty, R., Florescu, A., Wong, A., & Sharples, M. (2019). EdTech testbeds: Models for improving evidence. Nesta. nesta.org.uk ↗
|
|---|
| The chasm | The gap between a product's enthusiastic early adopters and the pragmatic majority, who want proof, support and a complete solution before they commit. | - R19Adoption and change in schoolsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
- Moore, G. A. (1991). Crossing the chasm: Marketing and selling technology products to mainstream customers. HarperBusiness.
|
|---|
| The Three Ways | The principles said to underlie DevOps: fast flow of work from development to operations, fast feedback in the other direction, and a culture of continual experimentation and learning. | - R12DevOps and continuous deliveryFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Kim, G., Humble, J., Debois, P., & Willis, J. (2016). The DevOps handbook: How to create world-class agility, reliability, and security in technology organizations. IT Revolution Press.
|
|---|
| Thematic analysis | Analysis in six phases, moving from familiarisation with the data and initial coding to developing, reviewing, naming and reporting themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006). | | - Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. doi ↗
- Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. doi ↗
- Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Theme | A pattern of shared meaning across data, organised around a central idea (Braun & Clarke, 2019). | | - Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. doi ↗
- Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. doi ↗
- Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Theory of constraints | The view that a system's output is limited by its single tightest bottleneck, so improvement anywhere else changes little until that constraint is relieved. | - R10Lean product developmentFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Goldratt, E. M., & Cox, J. (1984). The goal: A process of ongoing improvement. North River Press.
|
|---|
| Thin slice | A small piece of a feature built through every layer, so users can use it on its own. | | - Cohn, M. (2004). User stories applied: For agile software development. Addison-Wesley. mountaingoatsoftware.com ↗
- Wake, B. (2003, August 17). INVEST in good stories, and SMART tasks. XP123. xp123.com ↗
|
|---|
| Thinking aloud | Asking participants to say what they are thinking while they work on a task (Nielsen, 2012). | | - Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (Rev. ed.). MIT Press. doi ↗
- Fox, M. C., Ericsson, K. A., & Best, R. (2011). Do procedures for verbal reporting of thinking have to be reactive? A meta-analysis and recommendations for best reporting methods. Psychological Bulletin, 137(2), 316–344. doi ↗
- Nielsen, J. (2012). Thinking aloud: The #1 usability tool. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
|
|---|
| Threat model | A structured account of what a system holds, who might attack it, how, and what would stop them, written before the build so that defences follow the risks. | - R17Privacy, security and ethicsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Shostack, A. (2014). Threat modeling: Designing for security. Wiley.
|
|---|
| Throughput | The number of work items a team or process finishes in a given period, such as tests completed per term. | - R10Lean product developmentFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Anderson, D. J. (2010). Kanban: Successful evolutionary change for your technology business. Blue Hole Press. books.google.com ↗
- Reinertsen, D. G. (2009). The principles of product development flow: Second generation lean product development. Celeritas Publishing. lpd2.com ↗
|
|---|
| Throwaway prototype | A prototype built only to answer a question and then discarded, with none of its code or materials carried into the product. | - R07Design methods IIFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Tripp, S. D., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 31–44. doi ↗
- Floyd, C. (1984). A systematic look at prototyping. In R. Budde, K. Kuhlenkamp, L. Mathiassen, & H. Züllighoven (Eds.), Approaches to prototyping (pp. 1–18). Springer. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Ticket | The record of one request or report in a support system, holding who raised it, what was said and done, and its current status. | - R22Support and feedback loopsFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| Ticket deflection | The share of would-be support contacts that are resolved by self-service before a ticket is raised. | - R22Support and feedback loopsFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| Tiered support | An arrangement in which first-line staff handle common queries, and pass harder ones to second-line specialists and then to third-line engineers or the vendor. | - R22Support and feedback loopsFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| Time on task | How long a participant takes to complete a task, a measure of efficiency. R15 Time a student is estimated to have spent on an activity, usually inferred from gaps between logged actions (Kovanović et al., 2015). | | - International Organization for Standardization. (2018). Ergonomics of human-system interaction — Part 11: Usability: Definitions and concepts (ISO Standard No. 9241-11:2018). iso.org ↗
- Kovanović, V., Gašević, D., Dawson, S., Joksimović, S., Baker, R. S., & Hatala, M. (2015). Penetrating the black box of time-on-task estimation. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 184–193). ACM. doi ↗
- Sauro, J., & Lewis, J. R. (2016). Quantifying the user experience: Practical statistics for user research (2nd ed.). Morgan Kaufmann. shop.elsevier.com ↗
|
|---|
| Time to restore | The time from a fault being reported to the user being able to work again. | | - AXELOS. (2019). ITIL Foundation: ITIL 4 edition. TSO. axelos.com ↗
- DORA. (2026). DORA's software delivery performance metrics. Google Cloud. dora.dev ↗
|
|---|
| Timebox | A fixed maximum length of time given to an event or piece of work, which ends when the time runs out whether or not the work is finished. | - R09Agile and Scrum in practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (2020). The Scrum Guide: The definitive guide to Scrum: The rules of the game. scrumguides.org ↗
|
|---|
| Toil | Operational work that is manual, repetitive, automatable and without lasting value, and that grows as the service grows. Reliability teams cap the share of their time spent on it. | - R12DevOps and continuous deliveryFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Beyer, B., Jones, C., Petoff, J., & Murphy, N. R. (Eds.). (2016). Site reliability engineering: How Google runs production systems. O'Reilly Media. sre.google ↗
|
|---|
| Token | The unit of text a language model reads and writes, typically a word or a fragment of one. Context limits and usage prices are counted in tokens. | - R16AI in learning productsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Sennrich, R., Haddow, B., & Birch, A. (2016). Neural machine translation of rare words with subword units. Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), 1715–1725. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Tone of voice | The consistent character of an organisation's writing, such as how formal, warm or direct it is, adjusted to the reader's situation. | - R20Communicating change to schoolsFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| Topic summary | A grouping that gathers everything said about one subject, as distinct from a theme, which is organised around a central idea (Braun & Clarke, 2019). | | - Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. doi ↗
- Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Total cost of ownership (TCO) | The full cost of a product over its life, adding training, support, integration, maintenance and eventual replacement to the purchase or licence price. | - R01Digital product managementFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Ellram, L. M. (1995). Total cost of ownership: An analytical approach for purchasing. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 25(8), 4–23. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Touch target | The area of a screen that responds to a tap. Small or crowded targets cause errors, so accessibility guidance sets minimum sizes. | - R08UX foundations and design systemsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - World Wide Web Consortium. (2023). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 (W3C Recommendation). w3.org ↗
- Budiu, R. (2022). Fitts's law and its applications in UX. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
- Fitts, P. M. (1954). The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47(6), 381–391. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Touchpoint | Any moment where a user meets the service: a screen, a form, a message or a person. | | - Stickdorn, M., Hormess, M. E., Lawrence, A., & Schneider, J. (2018). This is service design doing: Applying service design thinking in the real world. O'Reilly Media.
- Polaine, A., Løvlie, L., & Reason, B. (2013). Service design: From insight to implementation. Rosenfeld Media.
|
|---|
| Toyota Production System | The factory system Toyota developed from the 1950s, which names seven kinds of waste, among them overproduction, waiting and inventory (Ohno, 1988). | | - Ohno, T. (1988). Toyota production system: Beyond large-scale production. Productivity Press.
- Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., & Roos, D. (1990). The machine that changed the world. Rawson Associates. archive.org ↗
- Krafcik, J. F. (1988). Triumph of the lean production system. Sloan Management Review, 30(1), 41–52.
|
|---|
| TPACK | Technological pedagogical content knowledge: knowing how technology, teaching and subject content work together (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). | | - Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. doi ↗
- Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Tragedy of the commons | The pattern in which people each acting sensibly for themselves overuse a shared resource, such as teachers' time, until it is degraded for everyone. | - R02Service design and systems thinkingFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer (D. Wright, Ed.). Chelsea Green.
- Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday/Currency.
- Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Train-the-trainer | A model in which a small group is trained first and then trains colleagues in turn. It reaches many people cheaply, and content is diluted at each step. | - R21Professional learning that changes practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Hayes, D. (2000). Cascade training and teachers' professional development. ELT Journal, 54(2), 135–145. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Training data | The examples a model learns from. Their coverage, quality and biases shape what the model can do and whom it serves badly. | - R16AI in learning productsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2024). Artificial intelligence risk management framework: Generative artificial intelligence profile (NIST AI 600-1). U.S. Department of Commerce. doi ↗
- Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 610–623. doi ↗
- Gebru, T., Morgenstern, J., Vecchione, B., Vaughan, J. W., Wallach, H., Daumé, H., III, & Crawford, K. (2021). Datasheets for datasets. Communications of the ACM, 64(12), 86–92. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Training needs analysis | A study, made before training is designed, of what people must be able to do, what they can do now, and whether training is the right answer to the gap. | - R21Professional learning that changes practiceFrom the field · not in the guide
| |
|---|
| Transfer | The use of something learned in training in the setting where it is meant to be used. | | - Showers, B., & Joyce, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 12–16. ascd.org ↗
- Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. books.google.com ↗
|
|---|
| Transformer | The neural network design behind current language models. It uses attention to weigh every part of the input against every other part when producing each output. | - R16AI in learning productsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, Ł., & Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 5998–6008.
|
|---|
| Tree testing | A test of a menu structure in which participants are shown only the text hierarchy and asked where they would look for given items. | - R05Evaluative researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Rohrer, C. (2022). When to use which user-experience research methods. Nielsen Norman Group. nngroup.com ↗
|
|---|
| Triage | Sorting a new report by severity and type, and deciding who handles it and how fast. | | - AXELOS. (2019). ITIL Foundation: ITIL 4 edition. TSO. axelos.com ↗
|
|---|
| Trialability | How easily an innovation can be tried on a small scale before committing to it. | - R19Adoption and change in schoolsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
|
|---|
| Triangulation | Checking a finding against more than one method, data source or researcher, so that a weakness in any one of them is less likely to mislead. | - R04Discovery researchFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
- Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). SAGE.
|
|---|
| Trunk-based development | A way of working in which developers merge small changes into one shared main branch at least daily, keeping any other branches short-lived. | - R12DevOps and continuous deliveryFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Forsgren, N., Humble, J., & Kim, G. (2018). Accelerate: The science of lean software and DevOps: Building and scaling high performing technology organizations. IT Revolution. itrevolution.com ↗
- Fowler, M. (2024). Continuous integration. martinfowler.com. (Original work published 2000) martinfowler.com ↗
|
|---|
| Tuning protocol | A structured, timed conversation among educators in which a presenter shares work and a question, then listens silently while colleagues give feedback. | - R07Design methods IIFrom the field · not in the guide
| - McDonald, J. P., Mohr, N., Dichter, A., & McDonald, E. C. (2013). The power of protocols: An educator's guide to better practice (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press.
|
|---|
| Two sigma problem | Bloom's (1984) challenge to find group teaching as effective as the two-standard-deviation gain he reported for tutoring. | | - Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(6), 4–16. doi ↗
- von Hippel, P. T. (2024). Two-sigma tutoring: Separating science fiction from science fact. Education Next, 24(2). educationnext.org ↗
- VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 197–221. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Two-by-two matrix | A grid made by crossing two dimensions, giving four quadrants into which cases, users or ideas are placed to show how they differ. | - R06Design methods IFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Lowy, A., & Hood, P. (2004). The power of the 2 × 2 matrix: Using 2 × 2 thinking to solve business problems and make better decisions. Jossey-Bass.
|
|---|
| Two-step flow of communication | The finding that messages often reach people through opinion leaders, who take them from the media and pass them on with their own interpretation. | - R20Communicating change to schoolsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communications. Free Press.
|
|---|
| Two-way communication | Communication in which the audience can reply and the sender listens and adjusts, as opposed to one-way broadcast. | - R20Communicating change to schoolsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
|
|---|
| Twyman's law | Any figure that looks interesting or different is usually wrong, so the more a result looks like a breakthrough, the more checking it needs (Kohavi et al., 2020). | | - Kohavi, R., Tang, D., & Xu, Y. (2020). Trustworthy online controlled experiments: A practical guide to A/B testing. Cambridge University Press. doi ↗
|
|---|
| Type I and Type II errors | A Type I error is concluding there is an effect when there is none. A Type II error is failing to detect an effect that is real. | - R18Basic statistics for educational technologistsFrom the field · not in the guide
| - Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Greenland, S., Senn, S. J., Rothman, K. J., Carlin, J. B., Poole, C., Goodman, S. N., & Altman, D. G. (2016). Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: A guide to misinterpretations. European Journal of Epidemiology, 31(4), 337–350. doi ↗
- Neyman, J., & Pearson, E. S. (1933). On the problem of the most efficient tests of statistical hypotheses. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Physical Character, 231, 289–337. doi ↗
|
|---|