Achieving Research-Informed Practice Amongst Teachers in Madrid and Catalonia: Findings From a Quantitative Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In Spain, as in many other countries, educational administrators are calling for schools and teachers to engage with research-informed teaching (RIT) to improve the quality of teaching and student outcomes. Despite this interest, schools’ and teachers’ engagement with research evidence is inconsistent, and studies exploring the factors affecting teachers’ and schools’ commitment to RIT, in the Spanish context, are undeveloped.Analysis: The authors analyzed a survey sample of 462 teachers in 204 Spanish schools to identify teacher and school characteristics that determine teachers’ likelihood of engaging in evidence-informed educational practice (EIP). This analysis explores variables such as teachers’ concepts of research, their self-efficacy to understand and conduct educational research, and the influence of school organizational variables.Findings: Teachers seem reluctant to use research in class practice. Whether research is seen as relevant to their immediate or short-term needs, combined with the capacity to use data research evidence, appears to be a decisive factor for those engagedwith research. Résumé Contexte : En Espagne, comme dans plusieurs autres pays, les administrateurs scolaires demandent aux écoles et aux enseignants de s’inspirer de l’enseignement fondé sur la recherche afin d’améliorer la qualité de l’enseignement et les résultats des élèves. Malgré cette demande, l’engagement des écoles et des enseignants à l’égard des résultats de recherche n’est pas des plus forts. D’autre part, dans le contexte espagnol, les études explorant les facteurs qui influent sur l’engagement des enseignants et des écoles envers l’enseignement fondé sur la recherche sont peu développées.Analyse : Les auteurs ont analysé un échantillon d’enquête de 462 enseignants dans 204 écoles espagnoles pour identifier les caractéristiques des écoles et des enseignants qui déterminent la probabilité que ceux-ci s’engagent dans l’éducation fondée sur les preuves (EFP). Dans leur analyse, les auteurs explorent des variables telles que la manière dont les enseignants perçoivent la recherche, l’efficacité de ces derniers à comprendre et à mener la recherche en éducation, et l’organisation de l’école.Conclusion : En général, les enseignants semblent réticents à recourir à la recherche dans leurs salles de classe. Pour ceux qui le font, le fait qu’ils la considèrent comme pertinente pour leurs besoins immédiats ou à court terme ainsi que leur habileté à utiliser des données issues de la recherche semblent être des facteurs décisifs. Keywords / Mots clés : research-informed teaching, evidence-informed educational practice, educational research / enseignement fondé sur la recherche, éducation fondée sur les preuves, recherche en éducation
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".