How To Make Evidence-Informed Practice A Day-To-Day Affair

Evidence informed practice – its improvement purpose

With this article, we consider the engagement by teachers and school leaders in educational practices that are ‘evidence-informed’ - across school systems and world-wide. There is a growing consensus that effective teaching and leadership is based on evidence-informed practice (or EIP), and that EIP results in improving student learning and achievement.¹

To provide a rough and ready definition, we suggest EIP can be thought of as the engagement in research and data by educators. Of course, there has to be purpose to this engagement and, in our experience, EIP is most effective when it is directed at improving aspects of educators’ teaching, decision-making, leadership or ongoing professional learning.² In giving a more specific definition, we can say that EIP is what occurs in situations in which teaching and leadership practice is consciously informed by knowledge such as:

• formal research produced by researchers;
• evidence derived from practitioner inquiry; and/or
• evidence derived from routinely collected school or system-level data (for example, student assessment data).³

Why EIP?

In recent years there has emerged numerous imperatives, stretching across education systems from Chile to Australia, which seek to promote EIP. But why? It is perhaps most useful to contrast EIP against its alternative - the situation these imperatives are hoping to avoid. At its extreme, the position that is diametrically opposite to EIP is one of ‘repetition’ led practice: of teachers, once having finished their training, subsequently relying predominantly on their individual experiences of past classroom activity to guide how they engage with future cohorts of students. We might expect teachers to work for some 35 to 40 years.

Over this time the relevance of the formal knowledge they learnt at the beginning of their career will fade. At the same time, social, political and economic change, sometimes quite radical in nature, will occur. Just considering the last decade, and not even counting the recent Covid-19 pandemic, society has witnessed massive seismic shifts. These include the incursion of artificial intelligence and automation into the job market, migration crises, and a shift towards an increasingly inequitable economic system that rewards a small few at the detriment of the many.⁴ Safe to say, therefore, that society, as Bauman famously observed, is now increasingly liquid: constant change is ‘the only permanence, and uncertainty the only certainty’.⁵

So, as society constantly changes, then so too must teachers. We need educators to be continuously updating their skills and knowledge if they are to adapt to fast changing social and economic-related educational imperatives of the modern age.⁶ In other words, relying solely on limited experiential understanding will, over time, only ever result in less effective decision making as: 1) situations emerge that educators have not been previously encountered; and 2) educators fail to turn to the huge well-spring of contemporary knowledge (such as research findings) that they might employ to help them better understand and tackle such situations. So, without embracing EIP, it seems unlikely that future educators will be able to ensure that all children can realise their potential or enter society as competent, responsible citizens, regardless of background and situation.⁷. Similarly, teachers will be ill-equipped to prepare the students of today to be the workforce of tomorrow, when the nature of the work they will be doing and the skills required to do it are uncertain.⁸

Achieving EIP

But just because EIP is now increasingly viewed as a ‘good thing’, that doesn’t mean educators have begun engaging with research and evidence en masse. Despite the dedicated efforts of a range of organisations, teacher-led movements and researchers, hoping to promote better teacher and school leader engagement with research and data, EIP is far from becoming a reality. So, what can be done to remedy this situation?

Recently Professor Chris Brown and Dr. Joel Malin had the privileged of convening over 30 researchers from more than 25 countries, states and districts, world-wide, to explore the current ‘state of the nation’ of EIP.ⁱ As you might expect they found that educators’ engagement with EIP could often be driven by context.

For instance, the regulatory and accountability system in place within a given country (i.e. the international equivalents to organisations such as Ofsted) can have a huge impact on encouraging or discouraging evidence-use. They also found that norms around collaboration and professional identity mattered.

While this provided a useful way to look at different jurisdictions individually, what Brown and Malin’s data also helps us do is establish common principles for EIP that emerge across the piece. In other words, we can use Brown and Malin’s data to understand what needs to be attended to - whatever the context and whatever the school - if we are to establish EIP as part of the day-to-day business of teaching and school leadership.

So, what are these principles? In short, they centre on:

• the vision of school and system leaders;
• the capability of teachers; and
• enabling educators to collaborate effectively.

Let’s now explore each, in more detail.

Principle 1: It starts with buy-in to a shared vision on how EIP can strengthen the quality of teaching and learning

First there needs to be a shared vision for promoting the importance of EIP and its role in improving teaching and learning. Without a common vision that is recognized and shared by all relevant stakeholders, the occurrence of EIP will be dependent on happenstance and serendipity; meaning it will only ever be temporary and unstable. Such a vision must be consistent and compatible with other initiatives, both horizontally and vertically. Vertically, because it must stretch from national policy initiatives to the beliefs of teachers.

Horizontally, because the social interaction between teachers and networks of schools needs to galvanise this vision and embed its operation in practice (e.g. in terms of norms and practices, as well as the belief in EIP as a ‘better’ way of working than not using evidence). Such interaction and the ‘on the ground’ application of EIP should also generate knowledge and insight that can make its way back up to national policy-makers, ensuring they continue to be supportive of, and foster, EIP.

Looking across Brown and Malin’s 25 case studies and we can see that the idea of a shared vision is perhaps best exemplified in Catalonia, where the Catalan Education Act (Decret 274/ 2018) sets out a systemic and formal commitment to the promotion and use of educational evidence by teachers. But other examples abound. In California, for instance, the CORE districts (a network of eight districts comprising Los Angeles, Fresno, Garden Grove, Long Beach, Oakland, Sacramento City, San Francisco, and Santa Ana) have been noted for their success in improving student outcomes through their shared and agreed vision for evidence-informed collective learning.

In Ireland, meanwhile, national educational reforms and internal school evaluation practices coalesce around the need to embed key elements of EIP (such as data-based decision-making and research-informed practice). Finally, the Ontario Ministry of Education has long been committed to working collaboratively with educators, researchers and other key partners to engage each of these groups in connecting evidence to policy, programs and practice.

Principle 2: Then teachers need to feel capable and confident to use evidence for teaching and learning

It seems unrealistic to expect teachers to become evidence informed if they do not feel that they have the skills to engage in this way of working. Emmett Rogers famously argued that change is most likely to occur when people can see that to do something new won’t be challenging in an overwhelming sense, and that it builds on existing practice, rather than require learning a whole new way of operating. Of course, engaging in EIP won’t necessarily be straightforward.⁹ To do so, teachers need to be research and data literate, and this requires them to:

• know where to find evidence,
• know how to understand and critique evidence, and
• know how to use evidence to inform their practice.¹⁰

But an important aspect of evidence literacy is teachers’ belief that they can successfully use data to improve teaching and learning. Achieving evidence literacy thus requires teachers to be supported: we need to build their capacity to engage with research and data effectively, until they feel confident and competent in their ability to do so.

Again, examining the case studies convened by Brown and Malin reveals the multitude of ways in which teacher capacity for EIP can be built. In California, for example, capacity building within the CORE districts is undertaken through research-practice partnerships with universities and foundations. In Ireland, initial teacher education programmes have been designed to ensure that – on entering the teaching profession – teachers will have the necessary skills to engage in EIP-type activities, such as data-informed and research-based practices.

In New Zealand, various national educational initiatives include components that are designed to support teachers in being able to engage with and learn from research. Likewise, professional development programmes in the United Arab Emirates now have a strong focus on building teachers’ abilities to become evidence-informed. For a final example here, we can turn to Denmark, where one billion DKK was recently allocated to training programmes for increasing teachers’ ability to use evidence-based knowledge in their teaching practice.

Principle 3: EIP needs to be embedded as part of collaborative Professional Learning Communities and Professional Learning Networks

Effective collaboration involves situations in which teachers actively learn as a result of engaging with others, enabling teaching and decision-making to improve as a result. Typically, effective collaboration occurs within a ‘culture of mutual trust, respect and enthusiasm in which communication is open and honest’.¹¹

Similarly, it involves the inducement of mutual obligation, the fostering of interdependence and should expose the practice of teachers to the scrutiny of others.¹² This means that, while informal collaboration can be beneficial, to ensure that learning occurs systemically, rather than sporadically, formal and intentional systems for collaboration need to be put in place. Such systems are best typified by Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) and Professional Learning Networks (PLNs). A growing body of evidence suggests that when PLCs and PLNs are directed towards achieving EIP, they provide a ‘collaboration plus’ model of working. In other words, they ensure that teachers also learn from engaging with ‘external’ information (data or research) which can serve to expand, deepen or even challenge existing beliefs.

Examples of the successful use of evidence-centred PLNs and PLCs include the Catalonian education system, where there is a clear commitment to the use of collaborative networks between schools and educational organisations in order to promote evidence use by teachers. In England, meanwhile, Research Learning Communities (RLCs) have been used to foster research use through bringing together groups of practitioners from a variety of schools. Such practitioners are supported to develop evidence-informed practices and then share these with colleagues back in their ‘home schools’, so ensuring EIPs are widely disseminated. Another, similar, approach originating from the Netherlands, are ‘data teams’.

Here, supported by an external coach, teams of teachers and school leaders (with each team comprising six to eight people) work on solving specific educational problems, using a structured and cyclic eight-step approach (see Brown et al., 2017 for more on both RLCs and data teams).¹³ In Ontario, the Knowledge Network for Applied Education Research is an initiative to strengthen relationships between research producers. One final example of the use of PLNs to foster EIP is the Developing Potential – Empowering schools project.

The aim of the project was to aid secondary schools serving disadvantaged students in the Ruhr metropolis, Germany. Participating schools were set up in school-to-school networks and, using a data-driven approach and assisted by a school development coach, supported to engage in a comprehensive and successful school development process.¹⁴

Moving forward

There is now a strong evidence base to indicate that EIP leads to both better teaching and learning.¹⁵ There is also a moral imperative suggesting that teachers should only make decisions, or take action, when armed with the best available evidence. Nonetheless, despite these things (to say nothing of the dedicated efforts of a range of organisations, movements and academics, world-wide, to foster evidence-informed practices) EIP – as a ‘business as usual’ way of working – is yet to take hold in in any school system anywhere in the world.

Having studied how EIP is helped and hindered across 25 countries, however, we think we have found a way forward. And what is needed now, we argue, is a more joined up and strategic effort, and one that focuses on the three core areas outlined above: vision, capability and collaboration. So policy makers and system leaders, school leaders and teachers – it’s now over to you! The follow section is intended as a stimulus for the kind of action that might be taken, founded on these core principles.

What needs to be done – three challenges for the system and the school

- Developing a culture that encourages research use: Leadership support is key to fostering a culture of research-use. Such support can be witnessed in a number of the initiatives detailed above. In Ontario, for example, research use has been explicitly promoted as a goal and the Ontario Ministry of Education has previously attempted to ‘normalize’ decision-making informed by research evidence. The ministry also appointed a high ranking civil servant (the Chief Research Officer) with responsibility for leading research and knowledge mobilisation efforts across schools.

- Giving educators hand-on experience of EIP: First-hand experience is vital and teachers- also need to feel able to experiment if they are to fully engage in EIP type activity. Key to increasing EIP, therefore, is that system and school leaders ensure teachers are able to access, engage with and apply research when attempting to improve their practice. Approaches such as Ontario’s Knowledge Network for Applied Education Research and Teacher Learning and Leadership Program, as well as similar initiatives in New Zealand, and Catalonia all reflect efforts underway to make evidence much more available and as well as help teachers and policy makers ‘learn’ in relation to evidence, so as to support improved student outcomes.

- Ensuring networked collaboration: evidence use by educators is optimal when undertaken in a networked and collaborative way. For collaborative EIP to take root and flourish it must have high level support. In particular, however, school leaders and policy makers should promote the idea of ‘community’ while also ensuring staff are both encouraged and supported to engage in evidence-use in a networked way. Examples include those efforts in California and England (such as Research Practice Partnerships, Research Schools and Research Learning Networks) which facilitate networks of educators and researchers to work collaboratively in order to apply evidence to practice.

Professor Kristin Vanlommel, is Professor at University of Applied Sciences Utrecht (NL) and head of the Research Group for Driving Educational Change

Professor Chris Brown is Professor of Education and Deputy Executive Dean for the Faculty of Social Sciences and Health at Durham University (UK)

References

i. See: Brown, C. and Malin, J. (Eds) (due 2022) The Handbook of Evidence-Informed Practice in Education: Learning from International Contexts (London, Emerald).

1. Lai, M. K., & Schildkamp, K. (2013). Data-based decision making: An overview. Data-based decision making in education, 9-21. Brown C., Schildkamp, S. and Hubers, M. (2017) Combining the best of two worlds: a conceptual proposal for evidence-informed school improvement, Educational Research, 59:2, 154-172, DOI: 10.1080/00131881.2017.1304327. Vanlommel, K., Van Gasse, R., Vanhoof, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2021). Sorting pupils into their next educational track: How strongly do teachers rely on data-based or intuitive processes when they make the transition decision?. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 69, 100865.
2. Brown, C. (2020) The Networked School Leader: How to improve teaching and student outcomes using learning networks (London, Emerald). Walker, M. (2017) Insights into the Role of Research and Development in Teaching Schools, (Slough, NfER).
3. Brown C., Schildkamp, S. and Hubers, M. (2017) Combining the best of two worlds: a conceptual proposal for evidence-informed school improvement, Educational Research, 59:2, 154-172, DOI: 10.1080/00131881.2017.1304327. Cain, T. (2015). Teachers’ Engagement with Published Research: Addressing the Knowledge Problem, Curriculum Journal, 26, 3, pp. 488-509. Vanlommel, K., Van Gasse, R., Vanhoof, J. and Van Petergem, P. (2017) Teachers’ decision-making: data based or intuition driven? International Journal of Educational Research, 83, pp. 75-83
4. Brown, C. and Luzmore, R. (2021) Educating Tomorrow: Learning for the post-pandemic world (London, Emerald).
5. Bauman, Z. (2012) Liquid Modernity, (Cambridge, Polity Press). De Vries, S. and Prenger, R. (2018) A lesson study professional learning network in secondary education, in C. Brown and C. Poortman, C. (Eds) (2018) Networks for learning: effective collaboration for teacher, school and system improvement, (London, Routledge).
6. Ibid
7. Arkhipenka, V., Dawson, S., Fitriyah, S. Goldrick, S., Howes, A. and Palacios, N. (2018) Practice and performance: changing perspectives of teachers through collaborative enquiry, Educational Research, 60, 1, pp. 97-112. Howland, G. (2015) Structural reform: The experience of ten schools driving the development of an all-age hard federation across a market town in northern England, Management in Education, 29, 1, pp. 25–30.
8. Bauman, Z. (2012) Liquid Modernity, (Cambridge, Polity Press). Castells, M. (2010) The Rise of the network Society (Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell).
9. Rogers, E. (1995) Diffusion of innovations (4th edition) (New York, NY, The Free Press).
10. Thomm, E., Seifried, E., and Bauer, J. (2021) Informing professional practice: (Future) Teachers' choice, use, and evaluation of (non-)scientific sources of educational topics, Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie (2021), 35 (2–3), 121–126.
11. Weston, D., Hindley, B., and Cunningham, M. (2021) A culture of improvement: reviewing the reserach on teacher working conditions. Working paper version 1.1 February 2121 (London, Teaxcher Development Trust)
12. Warren Little, J. (1990) The Persistence of Privacy: Autonomy and Initiative in Teachers’ Professional Relations, Teachers College Record, 91, 4, pp. 509-535.
13. Brown C., Schildkamp, S. and Hubers, M. (2017) Combining the best of two worlds: a conceptual proposal for evidence-informed school improvement, Educational Research, 59:2, 154-172, DOI: 10.1080/00131881.2017.1304327.
14. Brown, C. (2020) The Networked School Leader: How to improve teaching and student outcomes using learning networks (London, Emerald).
15. Cain, T. (2015). Teachers’ Engagement with Published Research: Addressing the Knowledge Problem, Curriculum Journal, 26, 3, pp. 488-509. Godfrey, D. (2016). Leadership of schools as research-led organisations in the English educational environment: Cultivating a research-engaged school culture. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44 (2), 301-321. Mincu, M. (2014). Inquiry paper 6: teacher quality and school improvement ?what is the role of research? In The British Educational Research Association/The Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (Ed.). The role of research In teacher education: Reviewing the evidence, available at https:// www.bera.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/BERA-RSA-Interim-Report.pdf, accessed 24 April 2021. Rose, J., Thomas, S., Zhang, L., Edwards, A., Augero, A. and Rooney, P. (2017) Research Learning Communities: Evaluation report and executive summary, available at https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/public/files/Projects/Evaluation_Reports/Research_Learning_Communities.pdf