[[edit](/w/index.php?title=Evidence-based_practice&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Education")] More recently, there has been a push for [evidence-based education](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_education "Evidence-based education"). The use of [evidence-based learning](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_learning "Evidence-based learning") techniques such as [spaced repetition](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaced_repetition "Spaced repetition") can improve students' rate of learning. Some commentators[*[who?](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Unsupported_attributions "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch")*] have suggested that the lack of any substantial progress in the field of education is attributable to practice resting in the unconnected and noncumulative experience of thousands of individual teachers, each re-inventing the wheel and failing to learn from hard scientific evidence about 'what works'. Opponents of this view argue that it is hard to assess teaching methods because it depends on a host of factors, not least those to do with the style, personality and beliefs of the teacher and the needs of the particular children.[[12]](#cite_note-12) Others argue the teacher experience could be combined with research evidence, but without the latter being treated as a privileged source.[[13]](#cite_note-13) This is in line with a school of thought suggesting that evidence-based practice has limitations and a better alternative is to use *Evidence-informed Practice (EIP)*. This process includes quantitative evidence, does not include non-scientific prejudices, but includes qualitative factors such as clinical experience and the discernment of practitioners and clients.[[14]](#cite_note-14)[[15]](#cite_note-15)[[16]](#cite_note-16) Versus tradition ---------------- [[edit](/w/index.php?title=Evidence-based_practice&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: Versus tradition")] Evidence-based practice is a philosophical approach that is in opposition to [tradition](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition "Tradition"). Some degree of reliance on "the way it was always done" can be found in almost every profession, even when those practices are contradicted by new and better information.[[17]](#cite_note-Buysse2006-17) Some critics argue that since research is conducted on a population level, results may not generalise to each individual within the population. Therefore, evidence-based practices may fail to provide the best solution for each individual, and traditional practices may better accommodate individual differences. In response, researchers have made an effort to test whether particular practices work better for different subcultures, personality types etc.[[18]](#cite_note-18) Some authors have redefined evidence-based practice to include practice that incorporates common wisdom, tradition, and personal values alongside practices based on evidence.[[17]](#cite_note-Buysse2006-17) Evaluating evidence ------------------- [[edit](/w/index.php?title=Evidence-based_practice&action=edit&section=5 "Edit section: Evaluating evidence")] Further information: [Hierarchy of evidence](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_evidence "Hierarchy of evidence") [](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Research_design_and_evidence.svg) Hierarchy of evidence in medicine. Evaluating scientific research is extremely complex. The process can be greatly simplified with the use of a [heuristic](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic "Heuristic") that [ranks](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranking "Ranking") the relative strengths of results obtained from scientific research, which is called a [hierarchy of evidence](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_evidence "Hierarchy of evidence"). The design of the study and the endpoints measured (such as survival or [quality of life](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_life "Quality of life")) affect the strength of the evidence. Typically, [systematic reviews](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_review "Systematic review") and [meta-analysis](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis "Meta-analysis") rank at the top of the hierarchy while [randomized controlled trials](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_controlled_trials "Randomized controlled trials") rank above [observational studies](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_studies "Observational studies"), and [expert opinion](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_opinion "Expert opinion") and [case reports](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_report "Case report") rank at the bottom. There is broad agreement on the relative strength of the different types of studies, but there is no single, universally-accepted hierarchy of evidence. More than 80 different hierarchies have been proposed for assessing medical [evidence](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence "Evidence").[[19]](#cite_note-19) Applications ------------ [[edit](/w/index.php?title=Evidence-based_practice&action=edit&section=6 "Edit section: Applications")]

{
  "evidence_unit_id": "unit:e20e3e1d7eac11bf3069:68bf0109c6f8a87bfa96:1:d2923a4159354127f473",
  "artifact_id": "artifact:e20e3e1d7eac11bf3069:dc73b22624499d0574c0",
  "text": "[[edit](/w/index.php?title=Evidence-based_practice&action=edit&section=3 \"Edit section: Education\")]\n\nMore recently, there has been a push for [evidence-based education](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_education \"Evidence-based education\"). The use of [evidence-based learning](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_learning \"Evidence-based learning\") techniques such as [spaced repetition](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaced_repetition \"Spaced repetition\") can improve students' rate of learning. Some commentators[*[who?](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Unsupported_attributions \"Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch\")*] have suggested that the lack of any substantial progress in the field of education is attributable to practice resting in the unconnected and noncumulative experience of thousands of individual teachers, each re-inventing the wheel and failing to learn from hard scientific evidence about 'what works'. Opponents of this view argue that it is hard to assess teaching methods because it depends on a host of factors, not least those to do with the style, personality and beliefs of the teacher and the needs of the particular children.[[12]](#cite_note-12) Others argue the teacher experience could be combined with research evidence, but without the latter being treated as a privileged source.[[13]](#cite_note-13) This is in line with a school of thought suggesting that evidence-based practice has limitations and a better alternative is to use *Evidence-informed Practice (EIP)*. This process includes quantitative evidence, does not include non-scientific prejudices, but includes qualitative factors such as clinical experience and the discernment of practitioners and clients.[[14]](#cite_note-14)[[15]](#cite_note-15)[[16]](#cite_note-16)\n\nVersus tradition\n----------------\n\n[[edit](/w/index.php?title=Evidence-based_practice&action=edit&section=4 \"Edit section: Versus tradition\")]\n\nEvidence-based practice is a philosophical approach that is in opposition to [tradition](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition \"Tradition\"). Some degree of reliance on \"the way it was always done\" can be found in almost every profession, even when those practices are contradicted by new and better information.[[17]](#cite_note-Buysse2006-17)\n\nSome critics argue that since research is conducted on a population level, results may not generalise to each individual within the population. Therefore, evidence-based practices may fail to provide the best solution for each individual, and traditional practices may better accommodate individual differences. In response, researchers have made an effort to test whether particular practices work better for different subcultures, personality types etc.[[18]](#cite_note-18) Some authors have redefined evidence-based practice to include practice that incorporates common wisdom, tradition, and personal values alongside practices based on evidence.[[17]](#cite_note-Buysse2006-17)\n\nEvaluating evidence\n-------------------\n\n[[edit](/w/index.php?title=Evidence-based_practice&action=edit&section=5 \"Edit section: Evaluating evidence\")]\n\nFurther information: [Hierarchy of evidence](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_evidence \"Hierarchy of evidence\")\n\n[![](//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Research_design_and_evidence.svg/250px-Research_design_and_evidence.svg.png)](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Research_design_and_evidence.svg)\n\nHierarchy of evidence in medicine.\n\nEvaluating scientific research is extremely complex. The process can be greatly simplified with the use of a [heuristic](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic \"Heuristic\") that [ranks](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranking \"Ranking\") the relative strengths of results obtained from scientific research, which is called a [hierarchy of evidence](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_evidence \"Hierarchy of evidence\"). The design of the study and the endpoints measured (such as survival or [quality of life](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_life \"Quality of life\")) affect the strength of the evidence. Typically, [systematic reviews](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_review \"Systematic review\") and [meta-analysis](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis \"Meta-analysis\") rank at the top of the hierarchy while [randomized controlled trials](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_controlled_trials \"Randomized controlled trials\") rank above [observational studies](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_studies \"Observational studies\"), and [expert opinion](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_opinion \"Expert opinion\") and [case reports](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_report \"Case report\") rank at the bottom. There is broad agreement on the relative strength of the different types of studies, but there is no single, universally-accepted hierarchy of evidence. More than 80 different hierarchies have been proposed for assessing medical [evidence](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence \"Evidence\").[[19]](#cite_note-19)\n\nApplications\n------------\n\n[[edit](/w/index.php?title=Evidence-based_practice&action=edit&section=6 \"Edit section: Applications\")]",
  "access_class": "public",
  "heading": "Education",
  "observed_at": "2026-07-18T21:40:59.214Z",
  "state": "active"
}