Traianou and Hammersley (2008) argue that it is widely accepted that both educational policymaking and education practice should be evidence-based, or evidence-informed. According to Traianou and Hammersley (2008), this is expected to be common place amongst policymakers. Teachers are not expected to operate on ignored evidence (Traianou and Hammersley, 2008). The evidence-based practice movement’s origins lies in medicine and claims that research evidence should be given a higher priority in the decisions made by both policymakers and teachers (Traianou and Hammersley, 2008). This essay intends to compare five different articles regarding evidence-based and evidence-informed practice amongst teachers. The types of educational programmes and organisations that are involved in these studies will be compared. The issues surrounding evidence-based practice will be discussed throughout this essay. The articles will be compared in this essay to analyse how much they contribute towards an understanding of education-informed practice in educational settings. The educational or learning processes in these articles will be compared. Any relevance regarding different types of educational settings will be deduced from comparing these articles. Finally, each article will be briefly described before a comparison between them is conducted.
Brief description of articles
In order to make the case for evidence-based education, Davies (1999) argues that a distinction should be made between using existing research and establishing high-quality research. Meanwhile, Avis (2003) examines work-based knowledge in an educational context that is evidence-informed. Avis (2003), like Davis, explores the arguments that favour increased rigour in educational research. Avis (2003) argues that the advantages that conservative empiricism and a more appropriate position based on dialogue with constituents can bring to educational research.
Nonetheless, Hempenstall (2006) argues that evidence-informed practice is based on low-quality research. This has made the process of establishing evidence-informed teaching difficult, thereby reducing the quality in teaching (Hempenstall, 2006).
Traianou and Hammersley (2008) argue that there are many ambiguities in discussions about the implications of ‘evidence-based’ teaching. Traianou and Hammersley (2008) explored several of these implications through examining the Evidence-based Practice in Science Education (EPSE) study to try and close this gap in teaching. Millar et al (2008) have produced a response to Traianou and Hammersley’s article by spelling out the practical implications of ‘evidence-based practice’ in the context of mainstream subjects, such as science, and do not advocate any particular interpretation of that term.
Educational organisations and programmes
Davies’ (1999) views on evidence-based teaching are based on the programme of the University of Oxford Master’s Programme in Evidence-Based Health Care. This programme provides health professionals of all kinds of opportunities to enhance their professional skills whilst working full-time in their professional practice (Davis, 1999). In comparison to Davies, Avis (2003) discusses the Department of Education’s Best Practice Research Scholarships and the Learning and Skills Research Centre’s calls for an interest in practitioner research that addresses the immediacy of practice. It is believed these programmes helped improve education (Avis, 2003).
Hempenstall (2006) discusses the work that other organisations, such as Medline and the Cochrane Collaboration, perform in examining research. Unlike Davies and Avis, Hempenstall (2006) employs criteria for what constitutes as methodologically acceptable in his studies. Hempenstall (2006) references another organisation called the American Psychological Association. They have played a role in educational research through empirically supported treatments as a means of highlighting psychotherapy effectiveness (Hempenstall, 2006).
Millar et al (2008) explain that the role of the EPSE Network to explore the practical implications of ‘evidence-based’ practice in science. Compared to Davies, Avis and Hempenstall, Millar et al’s (2008) study explores the implications of this research on a specific subject. Traianou and Hammersley (2008), in response to Millar et al’s programme, use the Teaching and Learning Research Programme (TLRP) to understand the implications that evidence-based practice can have on government policies. Unlike the other authors’ studies, Traianou and Hammersley (2008) explain the impact this form of teaching can have on decisions made by governments to implement education practice.
Issues in using evidence-based practice
Davies (1999) suggests that one of the issues with evidence-informed teaching is that it lacks a cumulative character as it fails to build upon earlier examples of successful work. Davies (1999) highlights that the problem with evidence-based practice is that teachers use their own research to inform their own practice.
In comparison to Davies, Avis (2003) is concerned with the issue of authoritarianism in evidence-based teaching. Avis (2003) argues that the greatest problem regarding evidence-based practice is that too many teachers are starting to challenge this notion. According to Avis (2003), supporters of evidence-informed teaching, like Hargreaves, suggest resistance groups contribute towards a counter-culture in education that harms the successful implementation of this type of practice.
Hempenstall (2006), like Avis, studies the resistance that teachers demonstrate towards evidence-based practice. Hempenstall (2006) argues that it is an issue in teaching, but for different reasons. Hempenstall (2006) explains that the issue in evidence-based practice is that teachers view researchers as ignorant towards their own practice, whilst researchers view teachers as deeply conservative and resistant to their own findings.
Millar et al (2008) are rather critical of Traianou and Hammersley’s study. Millar et al (2008) argue that the failure of evidence-based teaching is that it attempts to employ an idiosyncratic perception of medicine. Millar et al (2008) explain this as a deeply structured set of rules for evaluating research evidence and a framework for making clinical decisions based on research findings. Despite this, Traianou and Hammersley (2008), like Davies, are critical of Hargreaves’ work. Traianou and Hammersley (2008) argue that evidence-informed practice has led the way to qualitative research that has not been conducted by teachers, thereby making researchers’ findings inaccurate in an educational setting.
An understanding of education-informed practice in educational setting.
Davies (1999) implies that the main issue with education-informed practice is that many studies that have been conducted in this field are based on health and medical studies that are either based on research of a poor or high quality. According to Davies (1999), the solution to this problem is to allow teachers access to research literature that is better registered, indexed and classified and accessible. This will enable teachers to search for and critically appraise research according to its relevance in the classroom (Davies, 1999).
Nevertheless, Avis (2003) proposes that the best way to improve education-informed practice in educational settings is by building research capabilities of those in academies and schools. Avis (2003) wants to have this process allied to systematic reviews. This will allow evidence to enhance educational procedures and informs practice (Avis, 2003). This is similar to the conclusions Davies draws up as it shows decent research is the most effective way of drawing up better practice.
However, Hempenstall (2006) argues that education-informed practice has made a significant contribution towards teaching in educational settings. Hempenstall (2006) suggests that examples include initiatives like ‘learning to read is as natural as learning to speak’, which was introduced by the National Council of Teachers of English in 1993. Other examples include the ‘parents reading to children is sufficient to evoke reading initiative’ (Hempenstall, 2006). Unlike Avis and Davies, Hempenstall (2006) believes that education-informed practice has been successful in educational settings.
Millar et al (2008), much like Avis and Davies, are deeply critical of the impact education-informed practice has had on educational settings. Millar et al (2008) infer that research needs to engage with the realities of practice, and not an idealised image of it. In regards to the teaching of science topics, Millar et al (2008) explain that practitioners follow practices in the teaching of specific science topics that are influenced by schemes of work, published textbooks and curriculum projects.
Traianou and Hammersley (2008) go much further than their counterparts in arguing that education-informed practice has been a complete failure. According to Traianou and Hammersley (2008), science-informed practice should not influence any form of teaching at all. Traianou and Hammersley (2008) suggest that research findings should be used as a resource which teachers can interpret and employ to their own practice if absolutely necessary, rather than being imposed upon teachers in an authoritarian manner.
Educational processes.
Davies (1999) discusses the process that he uses in his study whereby teachers use categories of students to help collect their results. Davies (1999) criticises this type of evidence on reflection. Proof is needed regarding the consequences of educational activities on students to help inform their research (Davies, 1999). In contrast, Avis (2003) employs the process of ‘new empiricism’. This is based on principles like an obvious research question, a clear criteria for including and excluding studies, and assessments of studies (Avis, 2003).
Unlike Davies, Hempenstall (2006) praises the process of methodologically sophisticated studies that involve experiments in a variety of schools and classes in different locations. Hempenstall (2006) argues this provides studies with a gold standard across a variety of different contexts.
Millar et al (2008) seek to use a combination of values and empirical evidence to inform what makes effective teaching. However, practitioners should not take these processes at face-value and use their own judgement to decide what makes teaching work (Millar et al, 2008). Traianou and Hammersley (2008) used the process of how students’ misconceptions can best be elicited by teachers in order to effectively assess learning.
Relevance for different types of educational setting from these article.
Davies (1999), Avis (2003), Hempenstall (2006), Millar et al (2008) and Traianou and Hammersley (2008) have all produced studies that are relevant to educational settings like schools. Together, their studies have helped identify the strengths and weaknesses of education-informed practice. Their studies have provided teachers with a balanced approach towards this type of practice. For example, Traianou and Hammersley (2008) have identified the problems with education-informed practice in the classroom setting by stressing that research has failed to take into consideration the impact teachers can have on this type of research. Education-informed practice can be ineffective depending on the context (Traianou and Hammersley, 2008).
Conclusion
It is clear that education-informed practice has many merits and weaknesses. Some of the merits behind this approach to research involve studying outcomes of education-informed practice based on a variety of different contexts. Despite this, some of the weaknesses behind this approach involve the lack of knowledge many researchers have about best practice in the classroom and the lack of validity that many of these studies have.
Bibliography:
Avis, James, (2003), ‘Work-Based Knowledge, Evidence-Informed Practice and Education’, British Journal of Educational Studies, 51(4), 369-389.
Davies, Phillip, (1999), ‘What is Evidence-based Education?’, British Journal of Educational Studies, 47(2), 108-121.
Hempenstall, Kerry, (2006), ‘What does evidence-based practice in education mean?’, Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11(2), 83-92.
Millar, Robin, Leach, John, Osborne, Jonathan & Ratcliffe, Mary, (2008), ‘Research and Practice in Science Education: A Response to Traianou and Hammersley’, Oxford Review of Education, 34(4), 483-488.
Traianou, Anna & Hammersley, Martyn, (2008), ‘Making Science Education Evidence- Based? Reflections on a Teaching and Learning Research Programme (TLRP) Study’, Oxford Review of Education, 34(4), 461-481.
