World-wide barriers and enablers to achieving evidence-informed practice in education: what can be learnt from Spain, England, the United States, and Germany?
World-wide barriers and enablers to achieving evidence-informed practice in education: what can be learnt from Spain, England, the United States, and Germany?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1057/s41599-020-00587-8
复制
发表时间：
2020-09-17
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Rind, Gul Muhammad
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Malin, Joel R.;Brown, Chris;Rind, Gul Muhammad
全球都在推动加强教育研究与实践之间的联系。然而，事实证明，促进循证实践（EIP）具有挑战性。实际上，这一“问题”需要同时关注教育系统的多个方面/层次，以及它们所处的环境。因此，使用系统方法的比较分析有可能就如何促进环境信息基础设施达成针对具体情况的见解。然而，这样的分析一直是稀缺的，什么样的研究确实存在一般是有限的相对于方法和理论。鉴于此，本研究执行和描述/反映了一种新的方法，用于分析和比较EIP中/跨系统。在这项研究中，教育工作者的证据使用模式进行了描述和比较分析，使用高收入国家设置的四个地区的样本：加泰罗尼亚（西班牙），英格兰（英国），马萨诸塞州（美国）和莱茵兰-普法尔茨（德国）。本研究采用双重分析框架（内聚/调节矩阵和制度理论）提供了一个方法论的透镜，通过它来理解EIP内和跨这四个系统。总之，这种方法不仅提供了一种解释不同背景之间宏观层面差异的方法，还可以比较系统之间可能共同和不同的中观层面和微观层面因素（通过制度理论）。这项研究的结果揭示了系统之间的证据使用的程度和性质的实质性差异，这反过来又根据独特的文化，系统和制度特征的模式。考虑到这些发现，本研究的讨论提出了一些临时的见解和思考，对教育的实际和潜在的EIP。例如，问责压力的类型/程度的可变性，以及这种可变性如何影响教育工作者的数据和证据使用，使得能够进行与决策者相关的讨论。我们还分享与流程相关的见解-即，描述了我们在采用这种新方法时所经历的进步和挑战。这些要点对希望效仿和改进本文所述努力的同事具有相关性，我们认为这些努力适用于教育部门内外。相对于教育，这些方法可以应用和改进，着眼于制定针对具体情况的一揽子计划（而不是一刀切），以促进EIP，并最终实现高质量和逐步改善学校/系统。
A global push exists to bolster the connections between research and practice in education. However, fostering evidence-informed practice (EIP) has proven challenging. Indeed, this 'problem' requires simultaneously attending to multiple aspects/levels of education systems, and to the contexts within which they reside. As such, comparative analyses using systems approaches hold potential for achieving context-specific insights regarding how to foster EIP. However, such analyses have been scarce, and what research does exist has generally been limited relative to methods and theory. Given this, the present study executes and describes/reflects upon a novel approach for analysing and comparing EIP in/across systems. In this study, educators' evidence use patterns are described and comparatively analysed, using a sample of four regions within high-income national settings: Catalonia (Spain), England (UK), Massachusetts (USA), and Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany). This study employs a dual analytical frame (a cohesion/regulation matrix and institutional theory) to supply a methodological lens through which to understand EIP within and across these four systems. Together, this approach not only provides a way of accounting for the macro-level differences between contexts, it also enables a comparison of meso-level and micro-level factors (via institutional theory) that might be common and distinct across systems. This study's findings reveal substantial diversity in the extent and nature of evidence use between systems, which in turn patterned according to distinctive cultural, systemic, and institutional features. Considering these findings, this study's discussion advances some provisional insights and reflections regarding actual and potential EIP in education. For example, variability relative to the types/extents of accountability pressures, and how this affected educators' data and evidence use, enabled a discussion holding relevance for policymakers. We also share process-related insights-i.e., describing the advances and challenges we experienced while undertaking this new approach. These points hold relevance for colleagues wishing to emulate and improve upon the efforts described herein, which we argue are applicable both in and beyond the education sector. Relative to education, these approaches can be applied and improved with an eye toward developing context-specific (vs. one-size-fits-all) packages for fostering EIP and, ultimately, achieving high quality and progressively improving schools/systems.