Search results

The Austrian education system can be classified as an egalitarian system. This is due to the fact that although it is a centrally governed system, the implementation of reforms is the responsibility of the schools. Regarding this implementation, in turn, there is a low level of accountability for the schools to the education administration. Consequently, this has implications for the way how and from whom evidence is handled within the system. Despite the increased emphasis on evidence-informed decision-making, current trends are leading away from nationally coordinated approaches (abolition of the regular and external assessment of national educational standards) and towards locally based initiatives (informal competences assessments). In this context, extended autonomy for schools plays a crucial role as schools received more responsibilities for decision-making. After a detailed description of the Austrian education system, the following article shows how evidence-informed practice is supported within the system by means of selected instruments and projects. Furthermore, relevant groups of actors are identified and analysed in terms of their competences and thus responsibilities for evidence-informed practice. From the analysis, facilitating and hindering factors for evidence-informed teaching and leading are identified.

South Africa is a developing country with an education system that remains in crisis, despite three decades of democracy. The vestiges of South Africa's oppressive past continues to plague a system where repeated efforts at top-down transformation and curriculum renewal have failed to create the change required (Roodt, 2018). Extensive country-wide research attests to persistent inequalities linked to poverty, unemployment, and poor educational outcomes, effectively trapping disadvantaged communities in downward spirals (World Bank, 2018). As in most other countries, evidence-informed practice (EIP) has been widely discussed and advocated for in South Africa, with the matric (school leavers') results resurging the conversation annually. Unfortunately, as is the case in many developing countries, it is well documented that the actual implementation of EIP is not as widespread as desired.

This chapter reviews and analyzes the use of EIP in South Africa through an exploration of the various spaces where EIP is reported to occur within the broader education landscape. Examples of teacher and school level EIP innovations, led by a wide variety of actors within the system, are evident – this despite the pervasive lack of resources, support, and effective leadership within the formal education system. Through reflecting on these ‘pockets of hope,’ which were found to exist not only within, but also outside and alongside the system, we hope to gather insights and initiate debate on how the uptake of EIP might be better informed and facilitated within the broader South African public education system.

This chapter discusses the development of evidence-informed practice in Australian education. It highlights growing system-wide aspirations and support for Australian teachers, school leaders, and jurisdictions to be engaging productively with research and evidence. Our aim here is to step back from these developments and consider them in the context of: (1) the nature and distinctive characteristics of the Australian school system; (2) what is known (and not known) about Australian educators' use of research and evidence; and (3) recent insights into enablers and barriers to research use in Australian schools. We argue that the development of evidence-informed practice in Australia needs to take careful account of the complex history and fatalist nature of the wider school system. This will make it possible to identify and work with the productive places that exist within a system of this kind. It is also important to recognize that research use in schools is a topic that has been investigated surprisingly little in Australia relative to other countries internationally. Current policy aspirations around evidence-informed approaches therefore need to be matched by greater efforts to understand the dynamics of research engagement in Australian schools and school systems.

This chapter addresses evidence-informed teaching in the English context. The chapter makes the case for considering England as having elements of both high and low social cohesion, with an increasingly narrow role for Local Authorities (districts) alongside the growth of more powerful but smaller Multi-Academy Trusts. Within the context of a highly regulated accountability regime, this places England in the hierarchist, with elements of fatalist, quadrant of the cohesion/regulation matrix. England has a well-developed infrastructure for supporting research use, including the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF), a very well-resourced charity acting as the What Works Centre for school education. Despite this, use of research evidence amongst teachers is low, and this has changed little since the mid-2010s. The chapter draws on institutional theory to explain this finding. The following explanations are provided: a lack of resources, coupled with a strong, politicised accountability system and a hollowed out middle tier to support schools, contributing to a lack of prioritisation amongst school leaders. However, England's well-developed infrastructure has enabled the EEF to play a significant and evidence-led role in supporting schools in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The chapter concludes by suggesting a series of suggestions to improve use of research in England. These include alignment of policy with research evidence; support for school leaders; work to explicitly link research to the evidence forms and supporting research brokerage.

Teachers across the globe have been called upon to employ evidence-informed practices to guide instructional decision-making. Using a social regulation/cohesion matrix and institutional theory analytic lens can help illuminate the barriers and enablers shaping teachers' efforts to use evidence in different policy contexts. In the US, there is social cohesion with respect to public schooling as well as a high degree of regulation with respect to accountability. In this chapter, we closely examine the work of a teacher team in a California middle school that we studied for four years using case study methods. While teachers on this team shared an interest in evidence use and were open to trying research-based practices in their own classrooms, doing so consistently was challenging. The teacher team's use of evidence to inform practice was shaped by three themes. First, several capacity-building opportunities provided teachers with support for drawing on research-based practices as well as eliciting student thinking as a form of evidence on student learning. However, lack of cohesion across these opportunities functioned as a barrier to effective implementation of strategies. Finally, a strong focus on accountability ultimately constrained the team's ability to consistently use evidence to inform daily practice. Lessons for policy and practice are discussed.

Purpose – This chapter draws on the previous chapters and institutional case studies to identify and discuss the necessary conditions and facilitating factors which contribute to institutional transformation to engage a diverse student body.

Methodology /approach – This chapter is based on thematic analysis of the previous chapters and institutional case studies. It utilises national contextual information, details of changes undertaken and reflections on the process of change. The key ideas are illustrated by quotes from the case studies.

Findings – The following necessary conditions and facilitative factors are identified and discussed:i.Commitment to a transformational approachii.Sharing understanding and meaningiii.Institutional strategy for change: senior leadership, policy alignment, creating a facilitating infrastructure across the student lifecycle and co-ordinating changeiv.Engaging staff and creating an inclusive culturev.Developing students' capacity to engagevi.Taking an evidence-informed approachvii.Linking change to other institutional priorities and developmentsviii.An enabling policy and funding context

Research limitations – It is based on the chapters and case studies presented in this book rather than a wider analysis.

Practical implications – This chapter offers institutions insight into the conditions and factors that enable and smooth institutional transformation.

Social implications – This chapter is designed to support the promotion of social justice in higher education.

Originality/value – This chapter draws on international research and institutional examples and identifies common conditions and factors which contribute to managing change to engage a diverse student body. Its value is practical insights into change from an international perspective.