MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1568788908

Researching research use : an online study of school practitioners across Canada

2010· dissertation· en· W1568788908 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Larysa Lysenko

Bibliographic record

VenueSpectrum Research Repository (Concordia University) · 2010
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEducational Assessment and Improvement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneralizability theoryEnablingPsychologyContext (archaeology)Variance (accounting)Variety (cybernetics)Computer-assisted web interviewingMedical educationCronbach's alphaApplied psychologyMedicinePsychometricsMarketingDevelopmental psychologyGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Because of its traditional role as an enabler of knowledge dissemination, education is expected to contribute substantially to the development of the knowledge economy. This means applying the knowledge that it generates through research to its own practice. Yet the literature shows that school practitioners do not express much demand for research findings, unlike doctors, engineers and other professionals. The purpose of this pan-Canadian online survey study is twofold. First, it investigates the extent to which school teachers, principals and professionals use research to inform their practice and indicates predictors of this use. Second, it tests the generalizability of a questionnaire originally developed within a provincial secondary school context. The 43-item questionnaire yielded 1,153 responses. Frequency of use of research-based information from a variety of sources and types of use were used as outcome measures. The questionnaire also explored practitioners' opinions about research, their attitudes towards research-awareness activities and their expertise to use research findings, as well as the constraints they contend with in everyday practice:- The results indicate that the three groups of practitioners either do not use educational research or use it infrequently. Although the respondents share neutral attitudes towards research, their comments add a negative connotation by qualifying research as irrelevant, and biased. The latent factor opinions about research is the greatest predictor, accounting for 9-16% of the variance in practitioners' use of research. The psychometric qualities of the questionnaire remain stable. Its internal reliability is 0.94. The four-factor solution explains 60% of variance and together with demographic variables predicts 22% of the frequency of use of research-based information. School leadership organizations, teacher education institutions and research-generating bodies stand to benefit from the study's findings, as they point to the necessity of increasing research relevance and accessibility, cultivating teaching as a research-based profession and building school capacity to use research. Future research should further explore the reasons why practitioners do not use research-based information and the ways to change school practitioners' negative perceptions of educational research. Refinements to the questionnaire and its cross-disciplinary comparison to other professions are also open for future inquiry.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.292
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0000.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.243
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpectrum Research Repository (Concordia University)Same topicEducational Assessment and ImprovementFrench-language works237,207