Evidence Based Practice: Finding the Educational Sweet Spot

I read a lot this week about evidence based practice with respect to the school library. Yes, evidence based practice is a hot buzzword lately with all of our state tests and student learning objectives, (SLOs) but it has remained oddly absent from the library curriculum. That made me wonder why? Is it because no one could conceive of a way to test students on the things they learn in the library? Or maybe because they didn't really understand the skills taught in the library to begin with? Or maybe it is just because anecdotal evidence is just better suited for this type of environment.

In any case, each of the articles I read this week (6 total on evidence based practice--I couldn't stop reading once I started) seemed to have their own idea of how "Evidence" should be used in our practice as librarians. One of the most comprehensive models of it's use comes from article written by Jennifer Richey and Maria Cahill. In their article they outline a cycle of evidence based practice that loops around in a circle, each step leading to the next, a circular flow chart. It starts by determining the needs of the students using evidence then proceeds to developing goals based on those needs. From there we are to develop a plan, implement the plan, communicate with parents, teachers, students, and administrators, then reflect on the lessons, and repeat with the intent to do even better next time.

I do like this model. It is simple and is a adequate representation of the process. However, I think it may be a bit oversimplified and too linear for real world use. In our real classrooms, things rarely go as planned and we need to make sure all teacher librarians understand that "not going as planned" is normal and okay! Any teacher will tell you that some of the best lessons they have ever done are the ones that they hadn't planned out fully, the ones where they let the students lead. We are constantly course correcting too, which this model does not show. If we get to the 'implement plan' step and the students do not respond well to the 'plan' or show they have already mastered a skill they seemed weak in during the evaluation on which the plan is based, then the process has to start again. The plan needs to be adjusted. So, in this model, instead of the arrows pointing us through one process and on to the next, they would go back and then forward again. The same might happen as we 'communicate.' Teachers might have suggestions, or anecdotal evidence that we did not take into account when making and implementing our plan, administrators might have input into the design of the plan, parents might have input that could be useful--all of which might contribute to a need to change the initial plan. Again we would course correct.

I am not saying that this model is not useful. It certainly is. What I am saying is that the process is not as clear-cut as this model might have us believe. It is important to lay out these steps so that we know the process and where we are going with it, but it is also important to remember that it is okay to course correct. Education doesn't usually fit into a neat little flow chart. It takes a little finesse to find the educational 'sweet spot' and that spot might be different for each class, even for each student. What is important, is not that we follow the steps of EBP, but that we continually adjust until we are doing what is right for our students, building the best possible curriculum to meet their needs.