Facilitating Research-Informed Educational Practice for Inclusion. Survey Findings From 147 Teachers and School Leaders in England

Abstract

This paper considers the engagement by teachers and school leaders in England in educational practices that are both ‘research-informed’ and supportive of inclusive education. We do so by seeking to understand the benefits, costs, and signifying factors these educators associate with research-use. In undertaking the study, we first worked to develop and refine a survey instrument (the ‘Research-Use BCS survey’) that could be used to uniquely and simultaneously measure these concepts. Our survey development involved a comprehensive process that comprised: (1) a review of recent literature; (2) item pre-testing; and (3) cognitive interviews. We then administered this questionnaire to a representative sample of English educators. Although response rates were somewhat impacted by the recent COVID-19 pandemic, we achieved a sufficient number of responses (147 in total) to allow us to engage in descriptive analyses, as well as the production of classification trees. Our analysis resulted in several key findings, including that: (1) if respondents see the benefits of research, they are likely to use it (with the converse also true); (2) if educators have the needed support of their colleagues, they are more likely to use research; and (3) perceiving research-use as an activity that successful teachers and schools engage in is also associated with individual-level research use. We conclude the paper by pointing to potential interventions and strategies that might serve (at least, in the English context) to enhance research-use, so increasing the likelihood of the development and use of effective inclusive practices in schools.

Teachers trust educational science - Especially if it confirms their beliefs

“…The same also applies to first-hand evaluation: Even a competent first-hand evaluation of the veracity of scientific evidence (e.g., enabled by comprehensive teacher training including a fundamental training in methodology and well-designed science communication) does not automatically imply engagement with evidence. This is also illustrated by the implementation steps of evidence-informed practice: after evaluating scientific evidence, teachers still need to link the evidence to their own prior knowledge and then need to find ways to concretely use the evidence in their practice (Brown et al, 2022). Nevertheless, it can be assumed that a successful first-hand evaluation supports correct receptions of scientific evidence, which in turn is a central basis for an adequate transfer of scientific evidence into practice.…”

“…Around the world, policymakers (e.g., European Commission, 2007;Kultusministerkonferenz, 2014) as well as scientists (e.g., Bauer and Prenzel, 2012) increasingly value the latter and often consider it the most veracious body of knowledge because it is obtained through systematic and verifiable means (e.g., Williams and Coles, 2007;Bauer and Prenzel, 2012;Bauer et al, 2015;Brown et al, 2017). Such so-called evidence-informed school practice is considered to have large potential to improve school and teaching quality as well as student learning, for example by helping teachers to (a) make or change decisions pertaining to their teaching practice, (b) develop new practices, (c) inform leadership (Brown, 2020;Brown et al, 2022), or (d) effectively deal with problems that repeatedly come up in practice (Stark, 2017;Kiemer and Kollar, 2021). Empirical studies provide initial evidence for these considerations by showing that scientific evidence can actually inform teachers' practical decisions and actions (Cain, 2015), and that evidence-informed interventions, at least in specific contexts like formative assessment (Black and Wiliam, 2003) or mathematics learning (Doabler et al, 2014), can positively affect student achievement.…”

“…The complexity of this endeavor is also reflected in the implementation steps of evidenceinformed school practice. Evidence-informed practices require educational research literacy (e.g., Shank and Brown, 2007) which not only includes (1) accessing, (2) comprehending, and (3) critically reflecting the scientific evidence (e.g., its validity), but also (4) combining this evidence with prior knowledge before (5) using the evidence in practice (Shank and Brown, 2007;Brown et al, 2022).…”

“…Previous studies identified various barriers ranging from lack of time to engage with evidence on top of other professional tasks, belief systems that devalue the importance, practicality, and usability of scientific evidence for teaching practice, as well as a lack of skills or knowledge to evaluate scientific evidence (see e.g., Gitlin et al, 1999;Williams and Coles, 2007;Thomm et al, 2021b). Thereby, different approaches exist that attempt to systematize these different barriers by using categorizations that range from rather broad distinctions between knowledge-and motivation-related barriers (e.g., Kiemer and Kollar, 2021) to more nuanced ones (e.g., van Schaik et al, 2018;Brown et al, 2022) Specifically referring to knowledge-related barriers, we argue that these are often associated with the structure of modern societies, more precisely with the cognitive division of labor (Bromme et al, 2015). In general, the cognitive division of labor is defined as the uneven distribution and use of knowledge due to training of highly specialized experts (Bromme et al, 2010).…”

A cautionary note on aggregation in educational psychology and beyond

“…This line of reasoning, in particular, renders the nomothetic striving absurd. Consider, for example, Brown et al (2022) studying what characteristics and circumstances are beneficial for research-informed educational practice in educators. With population-centredness, we can easily lift this claim up to the status of a nomothetic law.…”