Evidence-based education
Evidence-based education (EBE) is the principle that education practices should be based on the best available scientific evidence, with randomised trials as the gold standard of evidence, rather than tradition, personal judgement, or other influences.[1] Evidence-based education is related to evidence-based teaching,[2][3][4] evidence-based learning,[5] and school effectiveness research.[6][7]
The evidence-based education movement has its roots in the larger movement towards evidence-based practices, and has been the subject of considerable debate since the late 1990s.[8] However, research published in 2020 showed that there is still widespread belief, amongst educators in ineffective teaching techniques such as matching instruction to a few supposed learning styles[9] and the cone of learning.[10]
The English author and academic David H. Hargreaves presented a lecture in 1996 in which he stated "Teaching is not at present a research-based profession. I have no doubt that if it were it would be more effective and satisfying". He compared the fields of medicine and teaching, saying that physicians are expected to keep up to date on medical research, whereas many teachers may not even be aware of the importance of research to their profession. In order for teaching to become more research-based, he suggested, educational research would require a "radical change" and teachers would have to become more involved in the creation and application of research.[11]
Following that lecture, English policy makers in education tried to bring theory and practice closer together. At the same time, existing education research faced criticism for its quality, reliability, impartiality and accessibility.[12]
In 2000 and 2001 two international, evidence-based, studies were created to analyze and report on the effectiveness of school education throughout the world: the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in 2000 and the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) in 2001.
Also, around the same time three major evidence-based studies about reading were released highlighting the value of evidence in education: the US National Reading Panel in 2000, the Australian report on Teaching reading in 2005,[13] and the Independent review of the teaching of early reading (Rose Report 2006), England. Approximately a year before the Rose Report, the Scottish Executive Education Department (SEED) published the results of a study entitled A Seven Year Study of the Effects of Synthetic Phonics Teaching on Reading and Spelling Attainment (Clackmannanshire Report), comparing synthetic phonics with analytic phonics.[14]
Scientifically based research (SBR)[15] (also evidence-based practice in education) first appeared in United States Federal legislation in the Reading Excellence Act[16] and subsequently in the Comprehensive School Reform program.[17] However, it came into prominence in the U.S. under the No child left behind act of 2001 (NCLB), intended to help students in kindergarten through grade 3 who are reading below grade level. Federal funding was made available for education programs and teacher training that are "based on scientifically based reading research".[18] NCLB was replaced in 2015 by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).[19]
In 2002 the U.S. Department of Education founded the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) to provide scientific evidence to guide education practice and policy.
The State driven Common Core State Standards Initiative was developed in the United States in 2009 in an attempt to standardize education principles and practices.[20] There appears to have been some attempt to incorporate evidence-based practices. For example, the core standards website has a comprehensive description of the specific details of the English Language Arts Standards that include the areas of the alphabetic principle, print concepts, phonological awareness, phonics and word recognition, and fluency.[21] However, it is up to the individual States and school districts to develop plans to implement the standards, and the National Governors Guide to Early Literacy appears to lack details.[22] As of 2020, 41 States had adopted the standards, and in most cases it has taken three or more years to have them implemented.[23] For example, Wisconsin adopted the standards in 2010 and implemented them in the 2014–2015 school year, yet in 2020 the state Department of Public Instruction was in the process of developing materials to support the standards in teaching phonics.[24][25]
According to reports, the Common Core State Standards Initiative does not appear to have led to a significant national improvement in students' performance.[26] The Center on Standards, Alignment, Instruction, and Learning (C-SAIL)[27] conducted a study of how the Common Core is received in schools. It reported these findings: a) there is moderately high buy-in for the standards among teachers, principals, and superintendents, but buy-in was significantly lower for teachers, b) there is wide variation in teachers' alignment to the standards by content area and grade level, c) specificity is desired by some educators, however states and districts are reluctant to provide too much specificity, d) State officials generally agree that accountability changes under ESSA have allowed them to adopt a "smart power" message that is less punitive and more supportive.[28][29]
Subsequently, in England the Education Endowment Foundation of London was established in 2011 by The Sutton Trust, as the lead charity of the government-designated What Works Centre for high quality evidence in UK Education.[30][31]
In 2012 the Department for Education in England introduced an evidence-based "phonics reading check" to help support primary students with reading. (In 2016, the Minister for Education reported that the percentage of primary students not meeting reading expectations reduced from 33% in 2010 to 20% in 2016.)[32]
Evidence-based education in England received a boost from the 2013 briefing paper by Dr. Ben Goldacre. It advocated for systemic change and more randomized controlled trials to assess the effects of educational interventions. He said this was not about telling teachers what to do, but rather "empowering teachers to make independent, informed decisions about what works".[33] Following that a U.K. based non-profit, researchED, was founded to offer a forum for researchers and educationalists to discuss the role of evidence in education.[34]
Discussion and criticism ensued. Some said research methods that are useful in medicine can be entirely inappropriate in the sphere of education.[35]
In 2014 the National Foundation for Educational Research, Berkshire, England[36] published a report entitled Using Evidence in the Classroom: What Works and Why.[37]
The review synthesises effective approaches to school and teacher engagement with evidence and discusses challenges, areas for attention and action. It is intended to help the teaching profession to make the best use of evidence about what works in improving educational outcomes.
In 2014 the British Educational Research Association (BERA) and the Royal Society of Arts (RSA) conducted an inquiry into the role of research in teacher education in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The final report made it clear that research and teacher inquiry were of paramount importance in developing self-improving schools. It advocated for a closer working partnership between teacher-researchers and the wider academic research community.[38][39]
The 2015 Carter Review of Initial Teaching Training in the UK[40] suggested that teacher trainees should have access and skills in using research evidence to support their teaching. However, they do not receive training in utilizing research.
NCLB in the US was replaced in 2015 by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) that replaced "scientifically based research" with "evidence-based interventions" (any "activity, strategy, or intervention that shows a statistically significant effect on improving student outcomes or other relevant outcomes").[41] ESSA has four tiers of evidence that some say gives schools and policy makers greater control because they can choose the desired tier of evidence.[42] The evidence tiers are as follows:
In 2016 the Department for Education in England published the White Paper Educational Excellence Everywhere. It states its intention to support an evidence-informed teaching profession by increasing teachers' access to and use of "high quality evidence". It will also establish a new British education journal and expand the Education Endowment Foundation.[45] In addition, on October 4, 2016, the Government announced an investment of around £75 million in the Teaching and Leadership Innovation Fund, to support high-quality, evidence-informed, professional development for teachers and school leaders. A research report in July 2017 entitled Evidence-informed teaching: an evaluation of progress in England[46]
concluded this was necessary, but not sufficient. It said that the main challenge for policy makers and researchers was the level of leadership capacity and commitment to make it happen. In other words, the attitudes and actions of school leaders influence how classroom teachers are supported and held accountable for using evidence informed practices.
In 2017 the British Educational Research Association (BERA) examined the role of universities in professional development, focusing especially on teacher education and medical education.[47]
Critics continue, saying "Education research is great but never forget teaching is a complex art form."[48] In 2018, Dylan Wiliam, emeritus Professor of Educational Assessment at University College London, speaking at researchED stated that "Educational research will never tell teachers what to do; their classrooms are too complex for this ever to be possible." Instead, he suggests, teachers should become critical users of educational research and "aware of when even well-established research findings are likely to fail to apply in a particular setting".[49]
Reception[edit]
Acceptance[edit]
Since many educators and policy makers are not experienced in evaluating scientific studies and studies have found that "teachers' beliefs are often guided by subjective experience rather than by empirical data",[50][51] several non-profit organizations have been created to critically evaluate research studies and provide their analysis in a user-friendly manner. They are outlined in research sources and information.
EBP has not been readily adopted in all parts of the education field, leading some to suggest the K-12 teaching profession has suffered a loss of respect because of its science-aversive culture and failure to adopt empirical research as the major determinant of its practices.[52][53][54] Speaking in 2017, Harvey Bischof, Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation (OSSTF), said there is a need for teacher-centred education based upon what works in the classroom. He suggested that Ontario education "lacks a culture of empiricism" and is vulnerable to gurus, ideologues and advocates promoting unproven trends and fads.[55]
Neuroscientist Mark Seidenberg, University of Wisconsin–Madison, stated that "A stronger scientific ethos (in education) could have provided a much needed defense against bad science", particularly in the field of early reading instruction.[56] Other influential researchers in psychopedagogy, cognitive science and neuroscience, such as Stanislas Dehaene[57] and Michel Fayol have also supported the view of incorporating science into educational practices.
Critics and skeptics[edit]
Skeptics point out that EBP in medicine often produces conflicting results.[58] Others feel that EBE "limits the opportunities for educational professionals to exert their judgment about what is educationally desirable in particular situations".[59]
Some suggest teachers should not pick up research findings and implement them directly into the classroom; instead they advocate for a modified approach some call evidence-informed teaching that combines research with other types of evidence plus personal experience and good judgement; "practice that is influenced by robust research evidence".[60][61]
Others say there is "a mutual interdependence between science and education", and teachers should become better trained in research science and "take science sufficiently seriously" to see how its methods might inform their practice.[62]
Straight talk on evidence has suggested that[63] reports about evidence in education need to be scrutinized for accuracy or subjected to Metascience (research on research).[64]
In a 2020 talk featured on ResearchED, Dylan Wiliam argues that when looking at the cost, benefit and practicality of research, more impact on student achievement will come from a knowledge-rich curriculum[65] and improving teachers' pedagogical skills.[66]
Philosophical concerns[edit]
Some of the criticisms about evidence-based approaches to education relate to concerns about the generalisability of educational research, specifically that research findings are context dependent and that it is difficult to generalise findings from one context to another using a positivist approach.[67] Counter to this position is a view that education researchers have a responsibility to consider the practical value of their research.[68]
There has also been some discussion of a philosophical nature about the validity of scientific evidence. This led James M. Kauffman, University of Virginia, and Gary M. Sasso, University of Iowa, to respond in 2006 suggesting that problems arise with the extreme views of a) the "unbound faith in science" (i.e. scientism) or b) the "criticism of science" (that they label as the "nonsense of postmodernism"). They go on to say that science is "the imperfect but best tool available for trying to reduce uncertainty about what we do as special educators".[69]