Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The purpose of this research was to learn more about the ways that school and system leaders, access, engage with, share, and use research in their work. This research began with a framework developed by Levin (2004) and similar framing by Nutley et al (2007) suggesting that knowledge and use of research in schools depends on characteristics of the research itself (such as accessibility and perceived quality), characteristics of the educators and context (research background, interest level, supporting processes and structures) and the role of third party facilitators (such as professional media, experts, professional development providers) as distributors of knowledge. \nThis study is meant to add to our understanding of the way research is taken up in secondary schools and districts by replicating and extending the recent work by Levin et al (2009) in a research study conducted with the Canadian Education Association (CEA) and the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) entitled, “Research Use and its Impact in Secondary Education”. \n\tIn general, educators, like other professionals, have relatively limited direct knowledge of current research and rely on versions of research findings that they encounter in their daily work or from colleagues (Levin et al, 2009). This study examined the processes and practices in place within secondary schools and across a district school board to determine the facilitators and barriers to research use. The study addressed the following research questions: \n1.\tHow do secondary school leaders access and use relevant research findings? \n2.\tWhat are the main perceived barriers to the use of research by secondary school leaders? \n3.\tIn what ways does the school district support or hinder the use of research? \nThese questions were designed to focus on the dynamics at the district level and the organizational capacity for knowledge mobilization. Data were collected through an online anonymous survey and semi-structured interviews. The online survey suggests that educators have a high regard for research in their professional practice, and that there is an array of opportunities for teachers and school administrators to engage with research. And, according to the respondents, the greatest challenge is finding the time to access the research. The findings also reveal that the although there is a high regard for research, research is generally not a priority in secondary schools and practice is based more on knowledge gained from colleagues or personal experience than from evidence-based research. \nThe thesis concluded that there are many factors that both enable and hinder engagement with research and research use. Findings include the importance of culture and context of the school, the relationship between leaders’ actions and expectations and practice, relevancy of research to practice, the role of facilitation, the use of technology, and starting small to build a critical mass of teachers engaging with and using research in their practice.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,022 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».