关于在学校环境中推广干预措施,实施科学能告诉我们什么?范围审查

IF 9.6 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
{"title":"关于在学校环境中推广干预措施,实施科学能告诉我们什么?范围审查","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.edurev.2024.100620","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Educational reform through the scaling of evidence-based practices has been extremely difficult to achieve in practice. This scoping review examines the extent to which Implementation Science (IS) has been used to investigate the scaling of interventions in school settings and what has or could potentially be learnt from these investigations.</p><p>Scopus, ProQuest, and EBSCO databases were searched for studies that involved scaling of an intervention in a school setting and made reference to IS. A wide range of methodologies (observational, quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods) in publications including journals articles, book chapters and reports was included. Extracted data were grouped and analysed under Nilsen's IS classification system of determinant frameworks, evaluation frameworks, process models, classic theories and implementation theories. Inductive analysis of recurring themes in the literature was performed.</p><p>The use of IS in the study of scaling interventions in school settings is in its early stages, with just 101 studies identified. Of those studies, there has been little systematic and considered use of IS in the scaling of interventions in schools. Twenty-eight factors considered important in the scaling of interventions in school settings were identified but only four in five papers nominated an IS framework, model or theory as a guiding principle for assessing implementation. Only two out of three studies reported an implementation outcome (66%) and, of those studies that did, one in three reported a single implementation outcome (33%). There was also a lack of consistency in terminology, variability in the application of IS tools, and limited longitudinal investigation. The large number of IS conceptual tools (<em>n</em> = 47) employed, combined with variability in application revealed that a fragmented approach to the use of IS currently exists in educational implementation research.</p><p>We argue that using a limited number of IS conceptual frameworks (preferably over at least a two-year period) would enhance the study of scaling interventions in schools. A reduced range of IS tools and consistent terminology to conceptualise and discuss implementation would enable a solid research base to be established.</p><p>To move beyond fidelity measurement, the following areas need to be examined and reported: (1) the range of contexts in which the intervention is being implemented; (2) the barriers and facilitators studied; (3) multiple implementation outcomes; and (4) the intervention outcomes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48125,"journal":{"name":"Educational Research Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X24000290/pdfft?md5=049321e8235fbddb9659fb3f833557b8&pid=1-s2.0-S1747938X24000290-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What can Implementation Science tell us about scaling interventions in school settings? A scoping review\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.edurev.2024.100620\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Educational reform through the scaling of evidence-based practices has been extremely difficult to achieve in practice. This scoping review examines the extent to which Implementation Science (IS) has been used to investigate the scaling of interventions in school settings and what has or could potentially be learnt from these investigations.</p><p>Scopus, ProQuest, and EBSCO databases were searched for studies that involved scaling of an intervention in a school setting and made reference to IS. A wide range of methodologies (observational, quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods) in publications including journals articles, book chapters and reports was included. Extracted data were grouped and analysed under Nilsen's IS classification system of determinant frameworks, evaluation frameworks, process models, classic theories and implementation theories. Inductive analysis of recurring themes in the literature was performed.</p><p>The use of IS in the study of scaling interventions in school settings is in its early stages, with just 101 studies identified. Of those studies, there has been little systematic and considered use of IS in the scaling of interventions in schools. Twenty-eight factors considered important in the scaling of interventions in school settings were identified but only four in five papers nominated an IS framework, model or theory as a guiding principle for assessing implementation. Only two out of three studies reported an implementation outcome (66%) and, of those studies that did, one in three reported a single implementation outcome (33%). There was also a lack of consistency in terminology, variability in the application of IS tools, and limited longitudinal investigation. The large number of IS conceptual tools (<em>n</em> = 47) employed, combined with variability in application revealed that a fragmented approach to the use of IS currently exists in educational implementation research.</p><p>We argue that using a limited number of IS conceptual frameworks (preferably over at least a two-year period) would enhance the study of scaling interventions in schools. A reduced range of IS tools and consistent terminology to conceptualise and discuss implementation would enable a solid research base to be established.</p><p>To move beyond fidelity measurement, the following areas need to be examined and reported: (1) the range of contexts in which the intervention is being implemented; (2) the barriers and facilitators studied; (3) multiple implementation outcomes; and (4) the intervention outcomes.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48125,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educational Research Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X24000290/pdfft?md5=049321e8235fbddb9659fb3f833557b8&pid=1-s2.0-S1747938X24000290-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educational Research Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X24000290\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Research Review","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X24000290","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在实践中,通过推广循证实践进行教育改革极其困难。本范围审查研究了实施科学(IS)在多大程度上被用于调查学校环境中干预措施的推广情况,以及从这些调查中已经或可能学到了什么。包括期刊论文、书籍章节和报告在内的出版物中的各种方法(观察法、定量法、定性法和混合法)都被收录在内。根据 Nilsen 的基础设施服务分类系统,即决定性框架、评估框架、过程模型、经典理论和实施理论,对提取的数据进行了分组和分析。对文献中反复出现的主题进行了归纳分析。在研究学校环境中的规模化干预措施时,使用基础设施服务还处于早期阶段,仅发现了 101 项研究。在这些研究中,几乎没有系统地、经过深思熟虑地将信息服务用于学校干预措施的推广。有 28 项因素被认为是在学校环境中推广干预措施的重要因素,但只有五分之四的论文将 信息系统框架、模型或理论作为评估实施情况的指导原则。每三篇研究中只有两篇报告了实施结果(66%),而在报告了实施结果的研究中,每三篇中就有一篇报告了单一的实施结果(33%)。此外,术语也缺乏一致性,信息系统工具的应用存在差异,纵向调查也很有限。我们认为,使用数量有限的基础设施服务概念框架(最好至少为期两年)将会加强对学校干预措施的研究。我们认为,使用数量有限的基础设施服务概念框架(最好至少持续两年)将会加强对学校干预措施推广的研究。减少基础设施服务工具的范围并使用一致的术语来概念化和讨论实施问题,将能够建立坚实的研究基础:(1) 实施干预的背景范围;(2) 研究的障碍和促进因素;(3) 多种实施结果;(4) 干预结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
What can Implementation Science tell us about scaling interventions in school settings? A scoping review

Educational reform through the scaling of evidence-based practices has been extremely difficult to achieve in practice. This scoping review examines the extent to which Implementation Science (IS) has been used to investigate the scaling of interventions in school settings and what has or could potentially be learnt from these investigations.

Scopus, ProQuest, and EBSCO databases were searched for studies that involved scaling of an intervention in a school setting and made reference to IS. A wide range of methodologies (observational, quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods) in publications including journals articles, book chapters and reports was included. Extracted data were grouped and analysed under Nilsen's IS classification system of determinant frameworks, evaluation frameworks, process models, classic theories and implementation theories. Inductive analysis of recurring themes in the literature was performed.

The use of IS in the study of scaling interventions in school settings is in its early stages, with just 101 studies identified. Of those studies, there has been little systematic and considered use of IS in the scaling of interventions in schools. Twenty-eight factors considered important in the scaling of interventions in school settings were identified but only four in five papers nominated an IS framework, model or theory as a guiding principle for assessing implementation. Only two out of three studies reported an implementation outcome (66%) and, of those studies that did, one in three reported a single implementation outcome (33%). There was also a lack of consistency in terminology, variability in the application of IS tools, and limited longitudinal investigation. The large number of IS conceptual tools (n = 47) employed, combined with variability in application revealed that a fragmented approach to the use of IS currently exists in educational implementation research.

We argue that using a limited number of IS conceptual frameworks (preferably over at least a two-year period) would enhance the study of scaling interventions in schools. A reduced range of IS tools and consistent terminology to conceptualise and discuss implementation would enable a solid research base to be established.

To move beyond fidelity measurement, the following areas need to be examined and reported: (1) the range of contexts in which the intervention is being implemented; (2) the barriers and facilitators studied; (3) multiple implementation outcomes; and (4) the intervention outcomes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Educational Research Review
Educational Research Review EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
19.40
自引率
0.90%
发文量
53
审稿时长
57 days
期刊介绍: Educational Research Review is an international journal catering to researchers and diverse agencies keen on reviewing studies and theoretical papers in education at any level. The journal welcomes high-quality articles that address educational research problems through a review approach, encompassing thematic or methodological reviews and meta-analyses. With an inclusive scope, the journal does not limit itself to any specific age range and invites articles across various settings where learning and education take place, such as schools, corporate training, and both formal and informal educational environments.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信