Low-Performing Students as Challenge

Needing knowledge for a decision, problem, or challenge, makes people seek information (Krause & Möller, 2008; Case & Given, 2016). This study focuses on one pressing challenge teachers are confronted with internationally – low-performing students: The number rises in most countries (OECD, 2023; U.S.-ED, 2023), already in primary schools (Stanat et al., 2022). A topic on which primary school teachers express a need for material is performance heterogeneity (Eduversum et al., 2024). Many teachers perceive the associated challenges as strain (Eduversum et al., 2024). The combination of being a low-performing student at a young age and lacking informed support by teachers bears risks for their further educational and occupational pathways (OECD, 2016; Ferguson & Bråten, 2022; Heyder & Brunner, 2018).

Educational research provides suggestions on how to create better learning environments for low-performing students (Dumont, 2019; Jena, 2013; Matthewes, 2018). However, there is a lack of successful information transfer between research and (school) practice: a “research-practice gap” (Farley-Ripple et al., 2018): Evidence-based resources often do not reach teachers, despite persistent demands to base teaching on evidence (European Commission, 2007; Slavin, 2019; Goldacre, 2013). Teachers prefer experience- over evidence-based knowledge (Kiemer & Kollar, 2021). The reasons are manifold: resources, time (Williams & Coles, 2007) but also researchers not making their work understandable, useful, or accessible for non-scientists (Thomm & Bromme, 2012; Levin, 2013).

Digital Resources

Internet and social media have emerged as relevant resources for exchanging experiences and information (Prestridge, 2019; Greenhow et al., 2020; Carpenter et al., 2020), however, possibly containing misinformation, stereotypes, or self-interested goals (Shelton et al., 2020; Menz et al., 2021). To build a bridge between research and practice, “Clearinghouses” present research knowledge — summarized, accessible, and tailored especially for teachers ("What Works Clearinghouse": US-ED 2022; "Education Endowment Foundation": EEF, 2024). But evidence must not only be easy and short, it also must be meaningful for teachers – and the decision about what is relevant is best clarified through co-constructive processes (Farley-Ripple et al., 2018): Hence, information resources created equally by researchers and teachers could increase the utility for teachers while still being evidence-based.

Factors Influencing Teachers’ Use of Resources

The use of digital information resources depends on several factors. Behavioral models as well as findings on the technology use of teachers suggest that beliefs towards a resource influence the use (Yildiz, 2021; Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005). In addition to a perceived trustworthiness and utility (Schoor & Schütz, 2021), a resource providing information on a specific topic must match with the potential users: topic-related self-efficacy and topic-related beliefs may play a role, as evidenced in the context of inclusion (Opoku et al., 2021): Teachers with dismissive beliefs (“heterogeneity hinders vs. enriches other students”), or low self-efficacy towards dealing with low-performing students (“I am not capable”) may be less inclined to engage with resources on this topic. Also, control variables should be considered.

Research Questions

Our study investigated how information resources can better meet teachers’ needs.

• RQ1: What needs, related to low-performing students, do teachers have?

We were interested

(a) on which specific topics teachers feel that they need more information and

(b) what types of information resources teachers prefer: resources provided by teachers, by scientists, or by a collaboration between teachers and scientists.

• RQ2: Which factors explain differences in teachers’ intentions to use different resources?

We hypothesize that

• higher perceived utility of evidence-based (versus experience-based) knowledge (H1),
• beliefs valuing (rather than opposing) performance heterogeneity (H2), and
• higher self-efficacy in dealing with low-performing students (H3),

predict a higher intention to use (evidence-based) information resources.

Sample A preregistered and institutional-review-board-approved online survey was conducted with N = 151 primary school teachers in Germany. The average age was 43.3 years (SD = 12.05) with an average of 16.4 years of professional experience (SD = 11.58). The higher proportion of women (n = 131, 86.8%) is not surprising given the population of primary school teachers. Participants were recruited through an association for primary school teachers and social media in the fall and winter of 2024. Measures The study used a mixed-method design combining a standardized questionnaire with an open answering format: We investigated RQ1 a) using open answers on information needs, subtopics, or challenges they would like information about when thinking about low-performing students (qualitative). Through summarizing content analysis (Mayring, 2022), we identified categories inductively. RQ1 b) was addressed via a quantitative analysis of teachers’ preferences for types of information resources. We addressed RQ2 quantitatively using multiple linear regressions with the intention to use different digital resources as the dependent variable. Four variables covered teachers’ usage intention: Participants rated their likelihood of use for three different digital information resources, each about how to support low-performing students. 1. Scientific Transfer Resources: Websites by researchers, offering evidence-based information. 2. Teacher-to-Teacher Resources: Websites offering practical, experience-based information from teachers. 3. Co-constructive Resources: Websites co-created by both researchers and teachers providing both scientific evidence and practical information. Additionally, all three were aggregated into a scale – ‘general intention to use digital information resources.’ We assessed the independent variables using the following instruments, each on a 7-point Likert scale: • Attitudes Toward Knowledge for Teaching (Kiemer & Kollar 2021) - Subscale: Utility of Research Evidence, 7 items, with internal consistency as a measure for reliability ω = .95, example item: "A good teacher is familiar with empirical findings from educational science." - Subscale: Utility of Experiences, 7 items, ω = .90: "The quality of teaching depends primarily on the repeated teaching experiences of teachers." • Beliefs about Performance Heterogeneity: 5 items by Dignath et al. (2020), ω = .81: "In heterogeneous classes, the quality of teaching suffers for the more academically advanced students." • Topic-Specific Self-Efficacy: 4 items by Hachfeld et al. (2012), adapted for managing low-performing students, ω = .86: "I am confident in my ability to adapt my teaching to the needs of low-performing students. Additionally, we considered control variables: age, gender, own academic background, and number of low-performing students in class.

RQ1, preliminary results: Teachers expressed information needs in various issues. Out of 315 entries, we identified 21 categories, of which fostering students’ potential, differentiation, and fair assessment were the most prevalent. In terms of the different authorships of information resources, websites created co-constructively by teachers and researchers (M = 5.76, SD = 1.19) were viewed as similarly useful as teacher-teacher-resources (M = 5.77, SD = 1.44). Resources created only by researchers were preferred less (M = 4.97, SD = 1.76), which is in line with previous literature. RQ2: Regarding inter-individual differences in teachers’ usage intentions, the ‘utility of research evidence’ was the strongest predictor overall (ß = .314*** to ß =.331***). This is in line with H1. Interestingly, a higher perceived ‘utility of experiences’ has a negative effect on the intention to use co-constructive resources (ß = -.182*; SE = .122). As topic-specific self-efficacy and beliefs (as well as control variables) had no significant influence on any usage intention, H2 and H3 were rejected. Interpretation and Future Directions The identified relevance of evidence- versus experience-based knowledge for teaching can be viewed as chance: improving the image of ‘research evidence’ could build a bridge over the research-practice gap – but also be seen as a hindrance: scientific transfer might only reach already science-oriented teachers. Teachers who value knowledge through ‘experience’ tend to reject co-constructive resources, which raises questions of a potential lack of trust in receiving valid practical experiences when researchers are involved. Limitations are, amongst others, the topic-specificity and the non-representative, correlative nature of the data. Qualitative and quantitative findings help with understanding the situation: Knowing about preferences of resources and current needs helps reform transfer resources ("clearinghouses") and address key challenges in heterogeneous classrooms in the future.

Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In Albarracín, D., Johnson, B.T. and Zanna, M.P. (Hrsg.), The Handbook of Attitudes (S.173-221). Erlbaum Eduversum & Universitätsmedizin Mainz. (2024). Lehrkräfte im Fokus: Lehrergesundheit, Belastungserfahrungen und Unterstützungsbedarfe. Eduversum Verlag. https://www.lehrer-online.de/aktuelles/aktuelle-nachrichten/news/na/umfrage-ergebnisse-lehrergesundheit-belastungserfahrungen-und-unterstuetzungsbedarfe/ European Commission. (2007). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament. Improving the quality of teacher education (SEC/2007/932 final). Commission of the European Communities https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52007DC0392 Farley-Ripple, E., May, H., Karpyn, A., Tilley, K. & McDonough, K. (2018). Rethinking connections between research and practice in education: A conceptual framework. Educational Researcher, 47(4), 235–245. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X18761042 Ferguson, L. E., & Bråten, I. (2022). Unpacking pre-service teachers’ beliefs and reasoning about student ability, sources of teaching knowledge, and teacher-efficacy: A scenario-based approach. Frontiers in Education, 7, Article 975105. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.975105 Greenhow, C., Galvin, S. M., Brandon, D. L. & Askari, E. (2020). A decade of research on K–12 teaching and teacher learning with social media: Insights on the state of the field. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 122(6), 1–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146812012200602 Kiemer, K. & Kollar, I. (2021). Source selection and source use as a basis for evidence-informed teaching. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 35(2-3), 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652/a000302 Levin, B. (2013). To know is not enough: research knowledge and its use. Review of Education, 1(1), 2–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3001 OECD. (2016). Low-performing students: Why they fall behind and how to help them succeed. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/low-performing-students_9789264250246-en.html Schoor, C. & Schütz, A. (2021). Science-utility and science-trust associations and how they relate to knowledge about how science works. PLOS ONE, 16(12), Artikel e0260586. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260586 Thomm, E. & Bromme, R. (2012). “It Should at Least Seem Scientific!” Textual Features of “Scientificness” and Their Impact on Lay Assessments of Online Information. Science Education, 96(2), 187–211. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20480 Slavin, R. E. (2019). How evidence-based reform will transform research and practice in education. Educational Psychologist, 55(1), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1611432 Stanat, P., Schipolowski, S., Schneider, R., Sachse, K. A., Weirich, S. & Henschel, S. (2022). IQB-Bildungstrend 2021: Kompetenzen in den Fächern Deutsch und Mathematik am Ende der 4. Jahrgangsstufe im dritten Ländervergleich. Waxmann. https://doi.org/10.31244/9783830996064 Williams, D. & Coles, L. (2007). Evidence‐based practice in teaching: an information perspective. Journal of Documentation, 63(6), 812–835. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410710836376 Yildiz Durak, H. (2021). Modeling of relations between K-12 teachers’ TPACK levels and their technology integration self-efficacy, technology literacy levels, attitudes toward technology and usage objectives of social networks. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(7), Artikel 1136–1162. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.16195