DoRevision
Teacher guide

How DoRevision uses evidence and cites sources

DoRevision treats three kinds of claim differently. A claim about research names the study or the guidance it came from, so you can look it up. A claim about an exam board points at that board's published specification. A number about DoRevision says plainly that it's ours, how it was counted and over what period, because our own figures aren't independent evidence and shouldn't be presented as if they were. We don't publish invented teacher quotes, invented schools, or claims about results that we can't show the working for. If a section needs proof we haven't got yet, we leave the section out. This page sets out each of those rules and how to tell us when a source looks wrong.

Claims in education marketing are usually impossible to check. This page sets out what we will and won't say, so that when a page here does make a claim, you can tell which kind it is.

Claims about research

Where a page says that something works, it names the study or the guidance behind it, and says what that evidence actually covers. Research done with undergraduates in a laboratory isn't the same as research done with Year 11 in a classroom, and we try to be clear about which one we're talking about.

Where the evidence is contested, we say so.

Claims about exam boards

A statement about what a specification requires points at the board's published specification for that qualification. Boards revise their specifications, so claims like that carry the page's review date, and we re-check a page when a board publishes a change.

You can see which specification a piece of content is mapped to on the revision pages. The boards' own assessment material sits alongside it in the past paper archive, so you can check a claim about a paper against the paper itself.

Claims about DoRevision

Any figure about DoRevision itself is labelled as ours and comes with the method: what was counted, over what period, and from which group of people.

Our data has a real limitation, and it's worth stating clearly. The people who use DoRevision chose to use it, so they aren't a representative sample of GCSE students. A figure drawn from them tells you about our users and not about students in general. Wherever we publish our own numbers, that caveat goes with them.

Claims we won't make

  • Grade improvements attributed to using DoRevision, unless there's a study we can publish in full to support it.
  • Teacher quotes or school case studies that didn't happen.
  • Usage or adoption figures we can't reproduce from our own database.
  • Comparisons with named competitors based on anything other than their own published material.

Reporting a problem with a source

If a citation on a page is wrong, out of date, or doesn't support the claim it's attached to, tell us. How to do that, and what happens next, is on the about page.

Put one in front of a class

Tell us the subject and how long you have. You get a link to hand out, and it marks itself.

Create a free teacher account

Written by David Wright, Co-Founder, DoRevision.

David builds DoRevision with his son Noah (15). David has spent his career building EdTech products, and Noah has grown up watching lines of code being written. As a student at an important stage of his education, together they are building the revision platform that Noah is using to help revise for his GCSE exams and hopes his friends will find useful too.

Spotted an error on this page? [email protected]

How DoRevision writes its teacher material How DoRevision uses evidence and cites sources

Related for teachers

  • How DoRevision writes its teacher material Who writes the teacher pages on DoRevision, what we mean when we say a page has been reviewed, how we check that revision content matches the exam board's own specification, and what happens when you tell us something is wrong.