Research use in Flemish Education: From Personal Interest to Professional Practice?

• In Event: Using Research Evidence to Inform Educational Practice: Exploring Teachers’ Skill and Will to Do So

Abstract

The educational system in Flanders (Belgium) is marked by deregulation, low cohesion, and significant autonomy for schools (Vanlommel, 2022). In response to growing concerns about declining student achievement (Backs et al., 2023), educational authorities are introducing measures to promote evidence-informed educational practices (EIEP). Notable examples include the implementation of centralized assessments in 2024 and the establishment in 2022 of the Leerpunt foundation to advance scientific research and facilitate its dissemination.
System-level factors affect the nature and quality of EIEP, but are not isolated from barriers and enablers at the organizational and individual levels (Author,, 2023; Rickinson et al., 2022). To contribute to our understanding of these dynamics, we zoom in on individual Flemish teachers’ stances on using research evidence, and reflect on how these relate to the Flemish context.
An online survey tapped into teachers' goals for using research, their attitudes, motivational drivers, and professional development practices. Data from 151 teachers were analyzed using descriptive statistics and regression techniques.
Selected findings demonstrate that, when Flemish teachers use research evidence, they predominantly use it conceptually, i.e., to enhance their understanding of educational problems and solutions. However, there is substantial variability in self-reported engagement with research. Some teachers integrate it extensively into their practice, valuing its scientific foundation, while others trust far more on personal experience. Overall, teachers’ main motivation to use research evidence is intrinsic, driven by personal interest and by perceived relevance to one’s own practice. Attitudes toward research evidence are neutral to slightly positive. Notably, however, there is skepticism about its credibility. In terms of professional development, teachers prefer reflective and collaborative activities over updating activities such as reading research evidence. Experiential learning that readily integrates into personal practice is valued higher than staying informed about knowledge collected elsewhere and by others.
These findings resonate with prior research about (Flemish) educators’ reliance on intuitive and ad hoc decision-making and their diverse perceptions about EIEP (e.g., Van Gasse et al., 2015; Vanlommel et al., 2016). Using research evidence is perceived as an optional pursuit, akin to personal interest rather than professional obligation. This lack of EIEP has been explained by a lack of stringent requirements, which in turn has precipitated the current shift towards greater regulation. However, it is clear that system-level initiatives need to also consider individual dispositions in order to genuinely advance EIEP. For one, the role of research use in the formation and development of teachers' professional identities needs to be addressed in teacher training and professional development. Furthermore, policymakers and academics should recognize that research evidence is more likely to be utilized when it is more engaging to educators and more relevant to them at face value. This endeavor requires time and resources, but promises a significant return on investment.
This exploratory study is based on a small sample size and is firmly rooted in a specific educational setting. Nevertheless, it exemplifies an ever more tangible research-practice gap that is a global concern, and reflects on avenues that might bridge this gap.

Authors

• Evelyn Goffin, University of Antwerp

• Jan Vanhoof, Antwerp University