PT Journal
AU Vrbova, T
   Kantor, J
   Pavlisova, H
   Mareckova, J
TI JBI FRAMEWORK FOR EVIDENCE IMPLEMENTATION AND ITS USE IN EDUCATION
SO EduPort
PY 2024
VL 8
IS 2
DI 10.21062/edp.2024.005
DE cooperative learning; evidence-based education; evidence implementation; JBI (Joanna Briggs Institute).
AB Background: There is a significant increase in scientific evidence in education on a global scale, which should be considered by educational policymakers and professionals, and it should be improving pedagogical practice to the greatest extent possible. However, the application of research activities results into pedagogical practice is still insufficient, greatly due to the low knowledge of rigorous implementation procedures and methodologies. Efforts to expand the use of implementation methodology in education have been undertaken by the Centre of Evidence-based Education & Arts (EduArt Center), which is an accredited JBI (formerly Joanna Briggs Institute) entity at the Faculty of Education, Palacky University in Olomouc. Aims: The aim of this paper is to present JBI implementation methodology. It has been applied mainly in the field of healthcare, but thanks to its broad applicability and pragmatic orientation, it could improve the use of the best available scientific evidence in the field of education as well. Another aim is to present the results of a pilot project part, which was focused on the implementation of cooperative learning (CL) principles in teaching university students of pedagogically oriented study programs. Methods: Following the JBI approach to evidence implementation, we designed a pilot project (PP), in which CL was the evidence to be implemented. Cooperative learning can be characterized as a set of methods, by which students work together in small groups and help each other achieve learning goals. Over the past 40 years, research results have shown that CL has a positive impact primarily in three areas: desire to succeed, relationships among students, and mental health. To apply the elements of CL into practice, we used the JBI implementation approach, which has seven phases: 1) identifying the practice area, 2) engaging change agents, 3) assessing context and readiness to change, 4) practice revision against evidence-based audit criteria, 5) implement changes to practice, 6) re-assessment of practice, 7) sustainability planning. The pilot project was part of a doctoral thesis. Experts in JBI implementation methodology, pedagogy and special education acted as consultants and team members. Seven participants participated in the project. Results: First phase - identifying the practice area. The area for evidence-based implementation project can be addressed by known variability in practice, high costs, topics of local concern etc. The practice area should be relevant to the project team and organisation where the project is to be conducted. (PP: By conducting informal interviews with teachers and students of selected faculties preparing teachers we found out that CL is not very widespread in the Czech higher education environment. If there is, it is not used as its principles guide. A gap in practice was detected.)  Second phase - engaging change agents. There needs to be a project leader (responsible for communication and coordination of the team and participants), experts in subject, experts in methodology and facilitators (enthusiastic and active team members, not necessarily designated leaders). (PP: The team of our implementation project included a specialist in CL (i.e. the subject of implementation) who was also responsible for leading the team and communicating with the project participants. The team further included two implementation methodologists from the EduArt Center, Palacky University in Olomouc, and coordinators for obtaining contacts for project participants at individual faculties of the university. The participants were to include CL in their teaching lessons.)  Phase three - assessing context and readiness to change. As doctors would not start treating a patient without assessing their health status first, an implementation project should not begin before the context assessment is not performed. This can include workplace culture, communication, knowledge, skills and attitudes of the staff, relationships etc. (PP: During the initial contact with prospective participants, we identified reluctance: concern about the time required to participate in the project, stating that CL did not fit into their subjects. Then personal meetings were scheduled, the teachers were introduced to the goals, expectations, and gains of the project. All teachers who participated in the personal meeting agreed to participate in the project. Thus, we assumed openness and readiness for change regarding individual teachers.) Phase four - practice revision against evidence-based audit criteria. Audit should not be viewed as a means of highlighting insufficiency, but rather as a quality improvement process using explicit criteria to determine the status quo of the practice. The audit criteria are derived from evidence-based practice. (PP: Five principles of CL were used as a basis for formulating audit criteria and further operationalized into statements that could be used to decide whether they were being followed or not: positive interdependence, individual and group accountability, promotive interactions, social skills, and group processing. The review of practice against five criteria was carried out.) Phase five - implement changes to practice using Getting Research into Practice. The results of the baseline audits (comparison of current practice with the best practice standards) should be shared with everyone involved in the project. Everyone then has a chance to reflect on the results. After feedback and discussions, barriers to better results are identified and strategies for change are designed. (PP: The baseline audit discovered the main barriers to the best practice: lack of experience (both of teachers and students). The strategies were subsequently applied: creation of tailored guidebook, methodological support, direct observation and feedback.) Phase six - re-assessment of practice. After implementation of strategies changes are expected to occur. Considering the appropriate timing, a follow-up audit is conducted, and results of the baseline and follow-up audits are compared. (PP: The same questionnaire as in the baseline audit and additional interviews were used to re-assess the practice at the end of the semester. In four of the five criteria the compliance increased; compliance of criterion (group processing) stayed the same.) Phase seven - sustainability planning. Good results of the project should be maintained (or even increased) beyond the project duration. Further audits can be conducted to reach this goal. (PP: The sustainability plan for this project was to stay in touch with the participants. Discussions on the application of CL in teaching, exchanging tips and providing feedback should continue, and later include other teachers from the involved departments.) Based on our experience to date, we conclude that the JBI methodology can be fully applied in the pedagogical environment. However, to effectively formulate specific recommendations for pedagogical practice, conducting more implementation projects is necessary. For the future development of implementation in pedagogy, we recommend strengthening cooperation between experts from the school sector and experts from the field of implementation science.
ER