PROFESSIONAL PRACTITIONER USE OF RESEARCH REVIEW

1. PROFESSIONAL PRACTITIONER USE OF RESEARCH REVIEW Practitioner engagement in and/or with research Philippa Cordingley

2. Background: policy and practice • Practitioner engagement in and with research increasing • Multiple local, regional and national examples in England • GTC 2010 survey 33% teachers (12m)engaged in research • OECD examples of Nationally funded knowledge brokers: EPPI Centre, Knowledge Chamber, Netherlands, New Zealand BESS Programme, Danish Knowledge Clearinghouse, Canadian Council on Learning • Engaging in research (teacher-as-researcher) and with research (using the public knowledge base to inform practice) now get considerable investment across OECD • Some underpinning debate and research to which this review contributes

3. Systematic Review Methodology • Comprehensive electronic literature search- huge numbers – eg 80,000 + for health alone; • Screened titles & abstracts against the published criteria; • Retrieved full studies applied 3 levels of filtering; • Completed a map of the literature; • Double blind data extraction - 50% (98) of initial selection; 100% ( 25) for synthesis; • Explicit assessment for weight of evidence for synthesis; • Synthesised evidence for review questions; • Commissioned anonymous peer review; • Implications explored with policy makers, practitioners and researchers.

4. Review of studies of professional practitioners’ engagement in and/or with research in education and of its impact on learning Review of research reviews into engagement in and/or with research in health and social care – and, where possible, its impact on client outcomes Map of the literature Summary of reviews (no point in mapping, just a summary of the reviews and their terrain will suffice Synthesis of findings Synthesis of findings Comparison of related fields of evidence Technical report Three user reports

5. Findings: outcomes in education • Practitioner engagement in and with research is linked to positive outcomes for themselves and for pupils. • Impacts spread fairly evenly among improvements in: • knowledge and skills; • behaviour for learning; and • attitudes/motivation for learning.

6. FINDINGS: A Spectrum of Engagement

7. The Engagement Spectrum - education • At one end of the spectrum, where there were positive benefits for pupils- practitioners engaging with research in education involved: • research planned, analysed and reported by researchers • active involvement of practitioners in implementation, data collection and review • teachers introduced to research findings and underpinning rationale/ theory, by researchers • support to help teachers interpret findings and adapt them for their contexts • But not identifying questions, analysis, interpretation or reporting

8. The Engagement Spectrum - education • At the other end, benefits were linked with, practitioner engagement in research when: • activities were wholly planned, implemented, analysed and reported by practitioners • teachers drew on support from (e.g.) HEIs, Local Authorities and specialist organisations • teachers involved in data collection, review, observation and refinement of questions and evidence, analysis and reporting • Teachers used published research of others • Engaging with others’ research represents a change in England

9. In health (and social care) reviews: • When filtered for patient/ client outcomes data, health and social care reviews highlight a different spectrum ranging from: • reading briefings and guidelines • responding to compliance monitoring • less commonly, participating in workshops which enabled enquiry-oriented interpretation and contextualisation. • In H&SC engagement with was much more common. In education engagement in nearly always involved engagement with.

10. Examples of the research foci - education • Practitioners were engaging in and with varied research, including: • assessment for learning; • using the web as a learning tool; • improving social skills via co-operative learning; • making group work effective; • increasing student motivation; • professional development for behaviour management; • teaching literacy, mathematics, and social sciences; • inquiry based learning in science; and • creativity in the curriculum.

11. Findings: important processes • Identifying goals in relation to pupil outcomes • Selecting and experimenting with new approaches with support from specialists • Reviewing and refining results with support from peers and in light of evidence from classrooms • A settled picture – processes and outcomes pretty consistent in education

12. Education: obstacles and Support • Approaches homogenous for engaging both with and in • Time was often an obstacle including: • Time to undertake research • Rush to meet deadlines/ rhythms of academic year • Problem of in-depth focus v multiple competing demands • Peer collaboration and critical friendship – essential across all studies and fields as support and motivator • Form and content of specialist support important for: • Selecting the most effective/appropriate approaches • Initial training/modeling of new approaches • Designing research tools, analysis and reporting

13. Health education comparison • Approaches and outcomes more diverse in health • Less evidence about outcomes of practitioner use of research in health • Approaches seem to be more about communication and transmission of evidence • Knowledge base viewed as more certain – effort focussed on whether rather than how things work • Contextualisation less well revealed and problematised

14. Knowledge base in health and education different In health research tends to focus on high quality impact data in clinical settings. Education research focuses more on how things work in context but weaker re:impact data • In health obstacles reported as take up and compliance • In education they involve interpreting evidence, adapting for context whilst still securing fidelity to principles • In further education students are perceived as an obstacle to engaging in or with research • Teachers had greater professional autonomy with more scope for managed risk taking than did nurses or social care professionals • Are schools were more conducive practitioner research environments than colleges or clinical settings?

15. Contact Details philippa.cordingley@curee.co.uk www.curee.co.uk Centre for the Use of Research and Evidence in Education 4 Copthall House Station Square Coventry CV1 2FL 024 7652 4036