Evidence-based Practice in Education

Evidence-based Practice in Education

The terminology “evidence-based” is now deeply entrenched in teaching and higher education docket. Evidence-based teaching entails the application of evidence to determine the level of students’ learning, to establish and debate on appropriate teaching approaches and interventions, and to monitor scholars’ progress while evaluating the effectiveness of teaching (Hempenstall, 2006). Improvements and positive alterations in students’ experiences and educational results rely on the extensive use of dependable evidence in teaching practice. Nonetheless, a precise definition of evidence-based education methodologies is founded on a narrow explanation that would benefit from a wider recognition of the role of substantiation in teaching. As a result, this paper explores the concept of evidence-based teaching practice, its challenges, implications, and impact in ensuring a sustainable education system.

Explaining Evidence-based Practice in Education

In any given field, a well-defined practice permits systematic understanding and interpretation of underlying research supporting it. Today, industries are in a dilemma as to the type and level of standards of evidence that should be applied to declare a practice as “evidence-based” (Hempenstall, 2006). In almost all fields of service and product delivery, the evidence is regarded as the ultimate aspect supporting the existence and legitimacy of that practice. Ongoing contemporary trends suggest that practices will no longer be based on a dichotomous norm, but according to relative standards such as weak or strong, sufficient or insufficient, and emerging or old.

A tutor’s job includes a substantive amount of making decisions. For instance, teachers are continuously required to make predetermined decisions on what will be taught, the type of homework to give, and how to impart discipline and still maintain positive engagement with the students. Given the complexity of such decisions and the need to tackle these areas in the best methodology, evidence-based education, therefore, proposes a solution that can quickly be adopted by scholars (Carter, Stephenson & Strnadová, 2011). To tackle important professional questions, educationalists are given an alternative of following well-researched past findings.

Given the example of homework, the traditional education system proposes that the tutor should dictate and allocate the areas they perceive to be useful or the bureaucratic methodology as used in past studies. Nonetheless, the evidence-based alternative would be to assess the issue from a research perspective. In most incidences, the proposed strategy demonstrates a number of approaches that led to more efficient learning and understanding (Elliott, 2001). In that situation, the teacher can opt to set a practice quiz and administer it after a week delay other than the same day when the test was undertaken in a classroom setup. Evidence-based practice in teaching entails more than formulation and implementation of concepts that have been seen as efficient in controlled studies. In education, the evidence-based practice relies on the incorporation of dependable, domestic, and practitioner-collected evidence adopted from systematic external studies (Horner, Sugai & Anderson, 2010). Nevertheless, the policies, strategies, and discussions of evidence-based tutoring at times overlook the significance of this extensive, more comprehensive understanding of the impact of evidence in both learning and teaching.

The main type of evidence for tutoring is knowledge of the points attained by individual students during their course of teaching (Cook, Tankersley & Landrum, 2009). This understanding entails establishing what the students know and what they can do as commencement points for teaching. In addition, tutors are required to ensure that scholars are provided with well-equipped learning chances and challenging yet applicable learning goals (Pfeffer & Sutton, 1999). The determination of students’ juncture of leaning may involve consideration of available historical evidence. For instance, assessments and reports provided by previous tutors can be useful in administering examinations, tests, and other forms of evaluations to identify suitable starting points.

Evidence-based practice in matters educational relies on a frame of consideration with which leaning can be evaluated (Elliott, 2001). Typically, this kind of practice is a “roadmap” that illustrates and explains what it entails to grow and become more experienced in the areas of learning. Impacting knowledge and learning is therefore portrayed as a continuous procedure through which learners develop progressively by attaining higher levels of education, understanding concepts, and gaining skills within an extended duration (Odom, 2009). In evidence-based teaching practice, tests are undertaken to collect evidence and reach conclusions on learners’ level of comprehension and understanding. The goal of these practices is to employ observations of scholars’ performances and draw conclusions about their existing levels of accomplishment. A well-researched knowledge of a students’ juncture in their studies may call for a thorough diagnostic analysis of either common and unique errors or developed misunderstandings (Horner, Sugai & Anderson, 2010). Often, useful evidence is applied in tackling hindrances to further progress. Reports of scholars’ realization are then reported not as grades or percentages, but as points attained by the individual learner.

The Role of EBP in Informing Teaching Approaches and Interventions

After addressing the position of a learner in a given timeframe stands as a starting point in the implementation of educational EBP. But how do these practices influence further learning? Which approaches are crucial in improving scholars’ levels of skills and understanding? Are there successful evidence-based teaching practices that align with proposed ideas? Answers to these queries are obtained from vigorous, but systematic research and expert tutoring experience.

Typically, the general standard of effective teaching builds on and advances scholars’ existing skills, know-how, and understanding (Ecker, 2016). Tutors need to understand how to apply the evidence-based model of teaching, which in turn relies on a wider understanding of the learning environment, and in specific, typical paths and series of students’ learning. In addition to recognizing logical and typical series of progression, tutors require an appreciation of the fact that some learners fail and that this setback impedes their learning curve (Greenway, McCollow, Hudson & Davis, 2013). EBP in education avails evidence that awareness into common mistakes and misconceptions in teaching helps educationalists in diagnosing and solving individual problems.

EBP in Special Needs Education

The application of evidence-based practices or exercises shown by research to be effective seems particularly crucial in enabling the improvement of special education (Carter, Stephenson & Strnadová, 2011). As propagated by Duchnowski, Kutash, Sheffield & Vaughn (2006) students living with disabilities need the most efficient tutoring techniques to excel compared to the non-disabled learners who face lesser hindrances in their quest of grasping instructional details. Nonetheless, advocating for formulation and implementation of evidence-based practices in special education calls for an understanding of various forms interventions.

It can be confusing and misleading for educators who attempt to meet the broad range of schooling for students with special needs (Cook & Odom, 2013).

Tutors are faced with difficulties, particularly when determining decisions on forms of intervention to formulate and implement in the classroom. In addition, Kutash, Duchnowski & Lynn (2009), points out that caregivers and professionals handling students with special needs depend on unproven methods and rely on strategies that have insufficient evidence. This situation has resulted in unreasonable and unrealistic expectations for scholars. In particular, students with extreme cases of disabilities are constrained from attaining the preferred progress due to the methodology of applied teaching practice (Cook, Tankersley & Landrum, 2009). It is essential for administrators, teachers, and other education stakeholders to be conscious and knowledgeable about evidence-based methodologies to sufficiently address the requirements of learners with special needs. 

Criticism of EBP in Education

In some educational forums, education stakeholders impose EBP on unwilling and unprepared tutors. Such strategy derails efforts of evidence-based teachings as the measure is merely ineffective management. Some scholars criticize this mode of teaching in a view that research evidence can be dismissed as less serious and that dictated sequence of performance cannot entirely dictate a teacher’s decision (Pfeffer & Sutton, 1999). To offset this perception, the best method to improve tutoring is to allow educationalists to exercise autonomy and control over their teaching development, usually working in groups over unlimited periods. Groups associated with teaching practices can, therefore, determine elements to experiment with, and the pace of progress. Individual teachers and other parties can assist each other as they strive to improve their standards. In overall, this method is commended than Evidence-based practice as it refrains from using control groups. Most importantly, teachers are allowed to try multiple strategies repetitively and reflectively in pursuit of fulfilling their careers.

Following the requirement by various educational bodies that both elementary and secondary schools must apply researched strategies, then the tutors have no option than to adhere to the strongly supported educational interventions (Cook, Tankersley & Landrum, 2009). Most of the evidence is obtained from well-analyzed research studies. A scientific, evidence-based teaching initiative is considered experimental and impactful if it employs a sound research design. The results of scholars receiving an analyzed teaching approach or intervention are equated to similar learners who are not exposed to these intrusions. According to Hargreaves (1997), evidence based teaching practice is one that is founded on high-quality data evaluation and analysis. In as much as these researchers are competent in data collection and analysis, they involve other specialists to review the methodologies used in research.

When dealing with students with special needs and learners living with disabilities, scholars are expected to follow individualized instructions which correspond with the needs of the scholar. In this line of thought, Arnold (2011) argues that it is crucial for stakeholders to carefully consider experiences and knowledge of teachers and professionals who teach students with disabilities and scholars with special needs. Experts and parents should, therefore, consider various instructional practices and approaches that have been indicated as the most efficient. The research-based initiatives should, however, match with the learner’s extraordinary skills and needs when designing a scholar’s individualized program. Most importantly, EBP in special needs education calls for recording and analysis of what works in tutoring these students.

In conclusion, all interventions for evidence-based teaching practices in education are not equal. While most of these initiatives are expected to education docket for the better, some measurements are more likely to influence the conduct and outcomes of the student positively. Educationalists and teachers alike should prioritize the employment of evidence-based practices that are highly likely to inspire desired learner outcomes.

References

Arnold, I. (2011). John Hattie: Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement.

Carter, M., Stephenson, J., & Strnadová, I. (2011). Reported prevalence by Australian special educators of evidence-based instructional practices. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 35(1), 47-60.

Cook, B. G., & Odom, S. L. (2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science in special education. Exceptional children, 79(2), 135-144.

Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M., & Landrum, T. J. (2009). Determining evidence-based practices in special education. Exceptional Children, 75(3), 365-383.

Duchnowski, A. J., Kutash, K., Sheffield, S., & Vaughn, B. (2006). Increasing the use of evidence-based strategies by special education teachers: A collaborative approach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(7), 838-847.

Ecker, A. J. (2016). Evidence-Based Practices for Teachers: A Synthesis of Trustworthy Online Sources. Insights into Learning Disabilities, 13(1), 19-37.

Elliott, J. (2001). Making evidence‐based practice educational. British educational research journal, 27(5), 555-574.

Greenway, R., McCollow, M., Hudson, R. F., Peck, C., & Davis, C. A. (2013). Autonomy and accountability: Teacher perspectives on evidence-based practice and decision-making for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Education and training in autism and developmental disabilities, 456-468.

Hargreaves, D. H. (1997). In defence of research for evidence‐based teaching: a rejoinder to Martyn Hammersley. British educational research journal, 23(4), 405-419.

Hempenstall, K. (2006). What does evidence‐based practice in education mean?. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 11(2), 83-92.

Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. M. (2010). Examining the evidence base for school-wide positive behavior support. Focus on exceptional children, 42(8).

Kutash, K., Duchnowski, A. J., & Lynn, N. (2009). The use of evidence-based instructional strategies in special education settings in secondary schools: Development, implementation and outcomes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(6), 917-923.

Odom, S. L. (2009). The tie that binds: Evidence-based practice, implementation science, and outcomes for children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 29(1), 53-61.

Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (1999). Knowing" What" to Do Is Not Enough: TURNING KNOWLEDGE INTO ACTION. California management review, 42(1).

Evidence-based Practice in Education

The terminology “evidence-based” is now deeply entrenched in teaching and higher education docket. Evidence-based teaching entails the application of evidence to determine the level of students’ learning, to establish and debate on appropriate teaching approaches and interventions, and to monitor scholars’ progress while evaluating the effectiveness of teaching (Hempenstall, 2006). Improvements and positive alterations in students’ experiences and educational results rely on the extensive use of dependable evidence in teaching practice. Nonetheless, a precise definition of evidence-based education methodologies is founded on a narrow explanation that would benefit from a wider recognition of the role of substantiation in teaching. As a result, this paper explores the concept of evidence-based teaching practice, its challenges, implications, and impact in ensuring a sustainable education system.

Explaining Evidence-based Practice in Education

In any given field, a well-defined practice permits systematic understanding and interpretation of underlying research supporting it. Today, industries are in a dilemma as to the type and level of standards of evidence that should be applied to declare a practice as “evidence-based” (Hempenstall, 2006). In almost all fields of service and product delivery, the evidence is regarded as the ultimate aspect supporting the existence and legitimacy of that practice. Ongoing contemporary trends suggest that practices will no longer be based on a dichotomous norm, but according to relative standards such as weak or strong, sufficient or insufficient, and emerging or old.

A tutor’s job includes a substantive amount of making decisions. For instance, teachers are continuously required to make predetermined decisions on what will be taught, the type of homework to give, and how to impart discipline and still maintain positive engagement with the students. Given the complexity of such decisions and the need to tackle these areas in the best methodology, evidence-based education, therefore, proposes a solution that can quickly be adopted by scholars (Carter, Stephenson & Strnadová, 2011). To tackle important professional questions, educationalists are given an alternative of following well-researched past findings.

Given the example of homework, the traditional education system proposes that the tutor should dictate and allocate the areas they perceive to be useful or the bureaucratic methodology as used in past studies. Nonetheless, the evidence-based alternative would be to assess the issue from a research perspective. In most incidences, the proposed strategy demonstrates a number of approaches that led to more efficient learning and understanding (Elliott, 2001). In that situation, the teacher can opt to set a practice quiz and administer it after a week delay other than the same day when the test was undertaken in a classroom setup. Evidence-based practice in teaching entails more than formulation and implementation of concepts that have been seen as efficient in controlled studies. In education, the evidence-based practice relies on the incorporation of dependable, domestic, and practitioner-collected evidence adopted from systematic external studies (Horner, Sugai & Anderson, 2010). Nevertheless, the policies, strategies, and discussions of evidence-based tutoring at times overlook the significance of this extensive, more comprehensive understanding of the impact of evidence in both learning and teaching.

The main type of evidence for tutoring is knowledge of the points attained by individual students during their course of teaching (Cook, Tankersley & Landrum, 2009). This understanding entails establishing what the students know and what they can do as commencement points for teaching. In addition, tutors are required to ensure that scholars are provided with well-equipped learning chances and challenging yet applicable learning goals (Pfeffer & Sutton, 1999). The determination of students’ juncture of leaning may involve consideration of available historical evidence. For instance, assessments and reports provided by previous tutors can be useful in administering examinations, tests, and other forms of evaluations to identify suitable starting points.

Evidence-based practice in matters educational relies on a frame of consideration with which leaning can be evaluated (Elliott, 2001). Typically, this kind of practice is a “roadmap” that illustrates and explains what it entails to grow and become more experienced in the areas of learning. Impacting knowledge and learning is therefore portrayed as a continuous procedure through which learners develop progressively by attaining higher levels of education, understanding concepts, and gaining skills within an extended duration (Odom, 2009). In evidence-based teaching practice, tests are undertaken to collect evidence and reach conclusions on learners’ level of comprehension and understanding. The goal of these practices is to employ observations of scholars’ performances and draw conclusions about their existing levels of accomplishment. A well-researched knowledge of a students’ juncture in their studies may call for a thorough diagnostic analysis of either common and unique errors or developed misunderstandings (Horner, Sugai & Anderson, 2010). Often, useful evidence is applied in tackling hindrances to further progress. Reports of scholars’ realization are then reported not as grades or percentages, but as points attained by the individual learner.

The Role of EBP in Informing Teaching Approaches and Interventions

After addressing the position of a learner in a given timeframe stands as a starting point in the implementation of educational EBP. But how do these practices influence further learning? Which approaches are crucial in improving scholars’ levels of skills and understanding? Are there successful evidence-based teaching practices that align with proposed ideas? Answers to these queries are obtained from vigorous, but systematic research and expert tutoring experience.

Typically, the general standard of effective teaching builds on and advances scholars’ existing skills, know-how, and understanding (Ecker, 2016). Tutors need to understand how to apply the evidence-based model of teaching, which in turn relies on a wider understanding of the learning environment, and in specific, typical paths and series of students’ learning. In addition to recognizing logical and typical series of progression, tutors require an appreciation of the fact that some learners fail and that this setback impedes their learning curve (Greenway, McCollow, Hudson & Davis, 2013). EBP in education avails evidence that awareness into common mistakes and misconceptions in teaching helps educationalists in diagnosing and solving individual problems.

EBP in Special Needs Education

The application of evidence-based practices or exercises shown by research to be effective seems particularly crucial in enabling the improvement of special education (Carter, Stephenson & Strnadová, 2011). As propagated by Duchnowski, Kutash, Sheffield & Vaughn (2006) students living with disabilities need the most efficient tutoring techniques to excel compared to the non-disabled learners who face lesser hindrances in their quest of grasping instructional details. Nonetheless, advocating for formulation and implementation of evidence-based practices in special education calls for an understanding of various forms interventions.

It can be confusing and misleading for educators who attempt to meet the broad range of schooling for students with special needs (Cook & Odom, 2013).

Tutors are faced with difficulties, particularly when determining decisions on forms of intervention to formulate and implement in the classroom. In addition, Kutash, Duchnowski & Lynn (2009), points out that caregivers and professionals handling students with special needs depend on unproven methods and rely on strategies that have insufficient evidence. This situation has resulted in unreasonable and unrealistic expectations for scholars. In particular, students with extreme cases of disabilities are constrained from attaining the preferred progress due to the methodology of applied teaching practice (Cook, Tankersley & Landrum, 2009). It is essential for administrators, teachers, and other education stakeholders to be conscious and knowledgeable about evidence-based methodologies to sufficiently address the requirements of learners with special needs. 

Criticism of EBP in Education

In some educational forums, education stakeholders impose EBP on unwilling and unprepared tutors. Such strategy derails efforts of evidence-based teachings as the measure is merely ineffective management. Some scholars criticize this mode of teaching in a view that research evidence can be dismissed as less serious and that dictated sequence of performance cannot entirely dictate a teacher’s decision (Pfeffer & Sutton, 1999). To offset this perception, the best method to improve tutoring is to allow educationalists to exercise autonomy and control over their teaching development, usually working in groups over unlimited periods. Groups associated with teaching practices can, therefore, determine elements to experiment with, and the pace of progress. Individual teachers and other parties can assist each other as they strive to improve their standards. In overall, this method is commended than Evidence-based practice as it refrains from using control groups. Most importantly, teachers are allowed to try multiple strategies repetitively and reflectively in pursuit of fulfilling their careers.

Following the requirement by various educational bodies that both elementary and secondary schools must apply researched strategies, then the tutors have no option than to adhere to the strongly supported educational interventions (Cook, Tankersley & Landrum, 2009). Most of the evidence is obtained from well-analyzed research studies. A scientific, evidence-based teaching initiative is considered experimental and impactful if it employs a sound research design. The results of scholars receiving an analyzed teaching approach or intervention are equated to similar learners who are not exposed to these intrusions. According to Hargreaves (1997), evidence based teaching practice is one that is founded on high-quality data evaluation and analysis. In as much as these researchers are competent in data collection and analysis, they involve other specialists to review the methodologies used in research.

When dealing with students with special needs and learners living with disabilities, scholars are expected to follow individualized instructions which correspond with the needs of the scholar. In this line of thought, Arnold (2011) argues that it is crucial for stakeholders to carefully consider experiences and knowledge of teachers and professionals who teach students with disabilities and scholars with special needs. Experts and parents should, therefore, consider various instructional practices and approaches that have been indicated as the most efficient. The research-based initiatives should, however, match with the learner’s extraordinary skills and needs when designing a scholar’s individualized program. Most importantly, EBP in special needs education calls for recording and analysis of what works in tutoring these students.

In conclusion, all interventions for evidence-based teaching practices in education are not equal. While most of these initiatives are expected to education docket for the better, some measurements are more likely to influence the conduct and outcomes of the student positively. Educationalists and teachers alike should prioritize the employment of evidence-based practices that are highly likely to inspire desired learner outcomes.

References

Arnold, I. (2011). John Hattie: Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement.

Carter, M., Stephenson, J., & Strnadová, I. (2011). Reported prevalence by Australian special educators of evidence-based instructional practices. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 35(1), 47-60.

Cook, B. G., & Odom, S. L. (2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science in special education. Exceptional children, 79(2), 135-144.

Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M., & Landrum, T. J. (2009). Determining evidence-based practices in special education. Exceptional Children, 75(3), 365-383.

Duchnowski, A. J., Kutash, K., Sheffield, S., & Vaughn, B. (2006). Increasing the use of evidence-based strategies by special education teachers: A collaborative approach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(7), 838-847.

Ecker, A. J. (2016). Evidence-Based Practices for Teachers: A Synthesis of Trustworthy Online Sources. Insights into Learning Disabilities, 13(1), 19-37.

Elliott, J. (2001). Making evidence‐based practice educational. British educational research journal, 27(5), 555-574.

Greenway, R., McCollow, M., Hudson, R. F., Peck, C., & Davis, C. A. (2013). Autonomy and accountability: Teacher perspectives on evidence-based practice and decision-making for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Education and training in autism and developmental disabilities, 456-468.

Hargreaves, D. H. (1997). In defence of research for evidence‐based teaching: a rejoinder to Martyn Hammersley. British educational research journal, 23(4), 405-419.

Hempenstall, K. (2006). What does evidence‐based practice in education mean?. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 11(2), 83-92.

Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. M. (2010). Examining the evidence base for school-wide positive behavior support. Focus on exceptional children, 42(8).

Kutash, K., Duchnowski, A. J., & Lynn, N. (2009). The use of evidence-based instructional strategies in special education settings in secondary schools: Development, implementation and outcomes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(6), 917-923.

Odom, S. L. (2009). The tie that binds: Evidence-based practice, implementation science, and outcomes for children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 29(1), 53-61.

Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (1999). Knowing" What" to Do Is Not Enough: TURNING KNOWLEDGE INTO ACTION. California management review, 42(1).