Comparing Drivers And Obstacles For Evidence-Informed Practice In Two Educational Systems

• In Event: Enablers and Barriers to Research-Informed Education: Exploring International Perspectives

Abstract

"Purpose: Global challenges and growing diversity require an educational system that is responsive and agile, putting evidence-informed practice (EIP) at the center of the policy and research. Using evidence should lead to better informed policy, higher quality decisions, more effective practices, and, in turn, improved and fairer outcomes. EIP is not a common practice in education (Malin & Brown, 2019) because it is hindered by, among other things, constraints at the system level. Our aim is to describe and explain how educational systems influence the (non) use of EIP. Educational systems of Flanders (Belgium) and the Netherlands were compared. Key lessons for practice and policy are presented, aiming to deliver insights that can be used as a lens when investigating EIP in other educational systems to strengthen EIP worldwide.

Theoretical framework: We used the cohesion/regulation matrix (Hood, 1998) to analyze the systems according to the system-level factors that define it. The ‘regulation’ axis refers to mechanisms of control and accountability, the ‘cohesion’ axis is used to categorize norms and networks that bind the educational system and strengthen collective approaches (Hood, 1998). Drawing on institutional theory (Powell & DiMaggio, 1991), facilitators and constraints related to norms, rules and powerful actors are discussed.

Methods: We studied and compared two educational systems (Flanders, the Netherlands) to explore and explain how systems influence EIP. Quantitative and qualitative research findings were investigated to get a fine-grained insight in drivers and obstacles of EIP.

Results: Both educational systemsand a general overview of EIP-factors will be presented. Flanders scores low on regulation and cohesion, whereas the Netherlands score high on both dimensions. In Flanders the necessary factors for EIP at the school and individual level are not present. The educational culture begets a strong resistance to centralized measures that foster EIP. Together with limited collaboration around data use, this makes education an individual, subjective practice rather than an evidence-informed, collective practice. In the Netherlands, factors for EIP are present at the school level to a certain extent, although there are large differences between schools. At the individual level, teachers use evidence to a limited extent. Lack of competence is seen as the most hindering factor, as well as high trust in intuition.

Significance: Although these systems differ on the regulation and cohesion matrix, the development of human capital is a crucial condition for EIP in both systems. Educators need to be willing and able to use evidence to critically investigate assumptions and practices. EIP thus requires more than data-literacy courses. Policy-makers and researchers need to develop guiding frameworks that enhance professional development towards evidence-informed practice. They need to support a culture of reflective inquiry, collaboration, and ties can be strengthened within the profession. In the light of high-quality, equal education for all pupils, EIP should be a self-evident part of the (teacher) profession."

Authors

• Kristin Vanlommel, University of Applied Sciences Utrecht

• Elske van den Boom-Muilenburg, UCL Institute of Education