Here you will find the articles and reports that have ben published as a result of the Surveys of Evidence in Education for Schools and for Researchers.
This article published in AERA’s Educational Researcher, explains a conceptual framework to describe the connections between education research and practice as a bi-directional relationship.
The Center for Research Use in Education presents the results of analysis of data collected from over 150 schools nation-wide who participated in the Survey of Evidence in Education for Schools (SEE-S), a measure designed to understand the actions and activities that educators are involved in concerning the use of evidence in decision-making. This report, Survey of Evidence in Education for Schools (SEE-S) Descriptive Report, is to broadly portray research use in U.S. schools at scale to better understand where we are as an educational system in the more than forty-year journey to improve the role of research in education policy and practice. This report answers 5 key questions:
- What are the nature and depth of schools’ use of research to inform policy and practice?
- What are practitioner perspectives on the gap between research and practice?
- Are practitioners well prepared to use research?
- Where do practitioners turn for research-based information?
- To what degree do practitioners engage in research brokerage activities?
The Survey of Evidence in Education for Schools (SEE-S) Descriptive Report Executive Summary is also available.
Dr. Elizabeth Farley-Ripple, co-Principal Investigator, and colleagues at the Center for Research Use in Education, have addressed two questions as a means of better understanding how schools use research – “What does deep use of research look like in schools?” and “What conditions support deep use of research and how do those conditions come to exist?”
In How is evidence enacted in schools? A mixed methods multiple case study of “deep-use” schools, Dr. Farley-Ripple and colleagues report what was learned in interviewing staff from four schools identified as “deep-users” of research from the data collected in the national administration of the Survey of Evidence in Education for Schools (SEE-S).
Dr. Elizabeth Farley-Ripple, co-Principal Investigator at the Center for Research Use in Education, has addressed two questions as a means of seeking strategies for promoting engagement between research and practice – “How educators connect with research information?” and “How that information moves within schools?”
In Research Brokerage: How Research Enters and Moves through Schools, Dr. Farley-Ripple reports on the resources educators use, who the brokers of research information are, how educators connect with research information, and how that information moves within schools.
Dr. Elizabeth Farley-Ripple, co-Principal Investigator at the Center for Research Use in Education (CRUE), and colleagues have addressed two questions in this report, “In what ways is knowledge mobilized throughout a research project?” and, “What factors support KMb in the research projects?”
In Knowledge Mobilization in the Production of Education Research: A Mixed Methods Study, Dr. Farley-Ripple and colleagues report what was learned in interviewing ten researchers identified as unique in their knowledge mobilization practices from the data collected in the national administration of the Survey of Evidence in Education for Researchers.
Dr. Samantha Shewchuk and Dr. Elizabeth Farley-Ripple, researchers at the Center for Research Use in Education, have studied what happens in the space between research and practice by using qualitative methods to explore three areas of inquiry: 1) understanding which individuals and organizations serve as knowledge brokers, (2) understanding the types of research-based products that move through brokerage systems and how research-based products are transformed in that system, and (3) understanding the path by which information moves from research into practice. In Understanding Brokerage in Education: Backward Tracking from Practice to Research, they report on backward tracking four case studies, examining each case through a five-step approach to produce credible stories of what happens as research moves between research and practice. These case studies highlight the critical importance of research brokerage in moving research-based ideas into practice as well as highlight issues related to understanding and leveraging the system of brokerage in education to strengthen the relationship between research and practice.
Complementing Dr. Samantha Shewchuk and Dr. Farley-Ripple’s study backward tracking how research informs practice, this follow up study focuses on how four researchers mobilized findings from recent research projects, tracking their work forward as it moves from the research community into policy and practice. This study replicates the mapping approach in the backwards case studies, exploring who serves as knowledge brokers, the path research takes as it moves into policy or practice, and the transformations research undergoes in this process. Findings emphasize the importance of diverse actors in the evidence ecosystem, the complexity of knowledge mobilization, and the range of strategies utilized in mobilizing research.
Dr. Katherine Tilley investigated the nature of the relationship between problem-framing and reported engagement with external research evidence in school-based decision-making for her dissertation. This study serves as an important first attempt to explore and describe this potential relationship and its implications for the use of research in schools. This analysis uses qualitative and quantitative data from 1,343 K-12 educators collected during the large-scale administration of the Survey of Evidence in Education for Schools (SEE-S). The study is guided by the following research questions: 1) What are the problems schools addressed in recent decisions and how are those problems understood by individuals working within those schools? 2) What is the relationship between problem-frame and the likelihood of the respondent indicating that research was used in the decision-making process?
Results suggest that school-based practitioners are facing a wide array of problems and that they understand these problems in diverse ways. Additionally, results of regression analyses provide evidence for the relationship between problem-frame type and reported external research use in decision-making. Specifically, seven problem-frame types were found to have a statistically significant relationship with reported external research use. The findings discussed in What’s the Problem (and Does it Matter)? have implications for how the education research and policy communities understand school-based decision-making and problem-solving and the role that research may play.
The Center for Research Use in Education presents the Survey of Evidence in Education for Schools (SEE-S) Technical Report documenting the major technical aspects of the development of the Survey of Evidence in Education for Schools (SEE-S), including item development, sample selection, and reliability and validity assessment. Descriptive statistics for the data collected during the survey field trial are also detailed in this report. Through the development and validation of multiple survey measures, this study aims to deepen the fields’ understanding of the actions and activities that educators are involved in concerning the use of evidence in decision-making.
If you would like to use either the Survey of Evidence in Education for Schools (SEE-S) or the Survey of Evidence in Education for Researchers (SEE-R), write to firstname.lastname@example.org.