Bringing Evidence to the Classroom: Exploring Educator Notions of Evidence and Preferences for Practice Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Successful implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) in schools requires an understanding of the factors influencing implementation and adoption. We conducted eight focus groups with school administrators and teachers to explore their views about EBP and the factors influencing EBP use within the school context. Educators believed EBP to mean one of three things: information that is supported by research evidence, by evidence of student performance, or evidence-by-proxy. We identified several factors influencing educator use of EBPs and intention to change practice: a school culture of openness and buy-in for EBP, relevance of EBP to student needs universally, and organizational support for implementation, were catalysts for motivating educators to change their practice. Understanding the practice change preferences of educators is important for effective EBP implementation in schools. Educators have a unique perspective of what constitutes EBP, and they can identify what they need in order to change practice.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.121 | 0.215 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".