Conference Agenda

Student performance in Flanders has shown a steady decline, according to both national and international comparative studies (e.g. Dockx et al., 2023; Faddar et al., 2020; Flemish Government, 2025; OECD, 2023). In response, the Flemish government has implemented strategic measures for systemic quality enhancement, including the recent establishment of quality labels for both professional development initiatives and educational learning materials. This study focuses specifically on the development of these quality labels for learning materials.

The Flemish educational landscape offers a wide array of learning materials designed to support pedagogical-didactic processes and enhance student learning. The term “learning materials” encompasses a broad range of resources, including (digital) textbooks, workbooks, teaching methods, and teacher manuals (Bellens et al., 2022). In daily practice, teachers and instructional teams rely heavily on these resources for both subject-specific content and pedagogical-didactic guidance. Within the framework of Flanders’ principle of educational freedom, developers have the autonomy to translate attainment targets and curriculum objectives into learning materials. However, there remains limited insight into the quality of these learning materials, their development processes, or their actual implementation in practice (Bellens et al., 2022; Flemish Government, 2025).

To address this, in April 2025 the Flemish government mandated Leerpunt, an independent evidence-informed organization, to evaluate learning materials within compulsory education, providing a grant of €3.49 million for the period 28 April 2025 to 30 June 2028. This project aims to provide essential support in the development, selection, and implementation of educational resources. This paper contribution presents the results of the first part of the project, which tested both a comprehensive quality framework and a formal evaluation procedure for learning materials. Leerpunt’s strategy for quality enhancement follows two distinct tracks:

1. A self-evaluation tool for learning materials developed by teachers and instructional teams.

1. A formal quality label for learning materials produced by (commercial) providers.

Although both tracks are being developed in parallel, this paper contribution focuses specifically on the second track: the formal quality label for learning materials produced by providers.

Following a large-scale study, providers will be able to officially submit their learning materials to Leerpunt for quality assessment, starting in February 2026. The formal evaluation begins with a strategic focus on Mathematics and Dutch in primary education. Approved learning materials will also be published on Leerpunt’s website. Throughout this process, Leerpunt adopts a development-oriented perspective, prioritizing constructive feedback and continuous improvement of materials over mere compliance.

The primary aim of the first part of the project was to develop and test a robust, standardized, and evidence-based mechanism for evaluating learning materials, with the goal of positively contributing to educational quality. This aim is divided into two central research objectives:

RO1: The development and testing of a comprehensive quality framework across all levels of compulsory education to ensure a valid assessment of learning materials.

RO2: The development and testing of an effective evaluation procedure (assessment protocol) to ensure a reliable and objective evaluation process.

In a first phase, an expert committee established a scientifically grounded quality framework for the systematic screening of learning materials, including main categories, indicators and items, and developed an evaluation procedure for this purpose in collaboration with Leerpunt. In developing this framework, the expert committee built extensively upon the work of the “Kwaliteitsalliantie”, which had previously conducted a comprehensive literature review on learning materials and produced an initial version of the framework for the secondary education (Bellens et al., 2022; De Man, 2022). Based on this solid theoretical foundation, an expert committee developed a generic quality framework to map the didactic quality of learning materials across all levels of compulsory education.

Contemporary societies are characterised by increasing volatility and rapid transformation, in which “the ability to learn has never been as important as it is today” (UNESCO, 2015, p. 41). This claim was empirically reinforced by the COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2022), which exposed the need for education systems to respond flexibly to rapidly changing political, economic, and social conditions. The abrupt transition to remote learning revealed both structural vulnerabilities and pedagogical challenges, highlighting the importance of research that connects educational knowledge with informed action. This orientation directly aligns with the EERA ECER 2026 conference theme Knowing and Acting: The Changing Conditions and Potentials of Education Research.

Empirical studies demonstrate that school closures and distance learning negatively affected students’ learning outcomes (Maldonado & De Witte, 2021; König & Frey, 2022), with particularly pronounced learning gaps in mathematics (Aguhayon et al., 2023) and native language (L1) education (Westhoff et al., 2023). In the domain of native language learning, the most frequently reported gaps concern written text comprehension (Westhoff et al., 2023). Linguistic research consistently shows that limited vocabulary, reduced semantic flexibility, and insufficient morphological awareness restrict students’ ability to construct meaning from texts, making these factors key predictors of comprehension difficulties (James et al., 2023; Rueda-Sánchez et al., 2025).

Similarly, research in mathematics education indicates that following school closures teachers observed substantial deficiencies in students’ understanding of arithmetic operations with whole numbers—addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division—as well as weakened conceptual knowledge of numerical operations (Baiño, 2025). These mathematical gaps were often compounded by students’ difficulties in reading comprehension, which hindered their ability to solve word-based tasks. In addition to cognitive factors, researchers highlight affective and motivational dimensions, noting that learning gaps are reinforced by reduced engagement, negative learning attitudes, and diminished motivation (Westhoff et al., 2023; Aguhayon et al., 2023).

Evidence from Lithuania reflects similar patterns. A national study identified major negative aspects of distance learning among Lithuanian schoolchildren, including reduced socialisation, difficulties with concentration and sustained attention, excessive independent workload, and lack of motivation to learn (Gaidelys et al., 2022). These findings motivated the development of the project Edukologijos proveržis (Breakthrough in Education), which aims to design an artificial intelligence–based tool to support the transition from remote learning and mitigate its long-term consequences. The proposed tool seeks not only to address existing learning gaps but also to strengthen students’ self-directed learning competencies.

Research Question.
How do teachers identify, interpret, and prioritise students’ learning gaps in native language (L1) and mathematics in relation to curriculum expectations?

Aim and Objectives.
The primary aim of the study is to examine teachers’ perspectives on learning gaps in native language (L1) and mathematics. The objectives are: (1) to analyse general education curricula to identify core learning areas and topics; (2) to explore teachers’ views on prevailing learning gaps; and (3) to develop a model of student learning gaps that will serve as the foundation for an artificial intelligence–based programme.

Theoretical Rationale.
Learning gaps are defined as discrepancies between students’ observed achievement and curriculum-based competency requirements (Baiño, 2025; Cabral-Gouveia et al., 2023; Minami & Ogawa, 2025). The development of the AI tool is grounded in self-regulated learning (SRL) theory, which conceptualises learners as active agents capable of planning, monitoring, regulating, and evaluating their learning, emphasising the role of metacognitive competencies in sustainable educational improvement (Panadero et al., 2025; Sun et al., 2025; Aydan, 2025; Chen, 2025; Teng, 2025).

The introduction of a new national standard for general secondary education in Latvia in 2019, developed within the competence-based education reform project Skola2030, substantially reshaped upper secondary physics education. As part of the reform, physics was reorganized into two courses: Physics I and the advanced Physics II course. Physics II, taught in Grade 12, introduced new and conceptually demanding topics, such as the equilibrium and rotation of rigid bodies, and placed increased emphasis on deep conceptual understanding and problem-solving skills.

Despite the reform’s ambitious objectives, its initial implementation revealed significant challenges. Teachers and students lacked access to instructional materials fully aligned with the updated curriculum, particularly for Physics II. In addition, physics teachers in Latvia constitute a highly heterogeneous group in terms of subject-matter expertise and pedagogical preparedness, partly due to a long-standing shortage of qualified physics teachers. These factors have created a strong need for instructional approaches that can support both teachers and students in addressing advanced physics content under reform conditions.

In this context, blended learning emerges as a promising pedagogical approach. Blended learning integrates face-to-face instruction with digital and online learning activities in a purposeful manner, enabling flexibility, personalization, and learner autonomy (Batista-Toledo & Gavilan, 2022; Liu et al., 2023; Ye et al., 2024). Empirical research indicates that blended learning can enhance conceptual understanding, student engagement, and academic achievement across diverse educational contexts, including physics education (Wang et al., 2022; Mangi & Verma, 2025). Importantly, blended learning aligns closely with the competence-based reform’s emphasis on transversal skills such as self-directed learning, learning to learn, and responsibility for one’s own learning.

A key element of blended learning in science education is the use of high-quality instructional videos. Platforms such as Khan Academy offer carefully structured explanations, visualizations of abstract concepts, and opportunities for self-paced learning. Prior research shows that instructional videos are particularly effective when integrated into flipped or blended classroom models, where students engage with video content before class and classroom time is dedicated to problem-solving, discussion, and higher-order cognitive activities (Bhaw et al., 2024; Qomara et al., 2024; Putri, 2021). At the same time, research cautions against uncritical use of online videos, highlighting risks such as passive viewing, misconceptions, and the “illusion of understanding” (Kulgemeyer & Wittwer, 2023). These findings underline the importance of expert selection, pedagogically sound integration, and the use of strategies that promote active engagement.

While blended learning has been widely examined in higher education and general science education, empirical evidence from advanced upper secondary physics courses remains limited, particularly in authentic classroom settings during large-scale curriculum reform. Moreover, few studies compare different blended learning models implemented across multiple schools.

Against this backdrop, the present study examines the implementation of different blended learning approaches, including the use of Khan Academy instructional videos, in the Physics II course in Latvian upper secondary schools. The central research question is whether, and to what extent, blended learning-supported instruction using Khan Academy videos leads to greater learning gains in advanced physics topics compared to traditional instruction.

By examining blended learning in the context of an ongoing curriculum reform and a demanding upper secondary physics course, the study provides evidence from a rarely studied educational setting and offers insights relevant for teachers, curriculum developers, and education stakeholders across Europe and beyond. Since Khan Academy materials are available primarily in English, the experience of translating and adapting instructional videos into Latvian using artificial intelligence also has broader European relevance, particularly for education systems operating in small-language contexts with limited access to high-quality, curriculum-aligned STEM resources.

Across Europe, school self-evaluation (SSE) has become a central policy instrument for quality assurance, accountability, and school improvement. Yet dominant SSE models largely rely on comprehensive indicator frameworks and performance metrics, often sidelining the lived experiences of students and teachers. This proposal addresses this limitation by examining how a focused, participatory, and narrative-based approach to school self-evaluation can operate as a democratic and advocacy-oriented policy tool.

The study is guided by three research questions:

1. How do students and teachers articulate their everyday school experiences when engaged in participatory forms of reflection?

2. Which shared critical need areas come up across student and teacher narratives?

3. How can a focused, qualitative form of school self-evaluation contribute to participatory governance, shared meaning-making, and policy advocacy within and beyond the school?

The conceptual framework brings together three strands of literature. First, the study draws on participatory and democratic education theories, particularly research on student and teacher voice, agency, and co-construction in school improvement processes. Second, it engages critically with school self-evaluation and accountability literature, highlighting the limits of technocratic and managerial approaches that prioritise measurement over meaning. Third, it adopts a policy instruments perspective, drawing on McDonnell and Elmore’s (1987) typology and Fowler’s (2013) work, to conceptualise school self-evaluation as a hortatory (discursive) policy instrument.

Rather than framing SSE as a comprehensive assessment of all school domains, this study proposes a focused self-evaluation model organised around shared priority areas identified by students and teachers themselves. This approach enables schools to surface structural vulnerabilities while keeping evaluation processes manageable, meaningful, and politically actionable. Narrative and ethnographic data are used not to rank performance but to generate a shared language around needs, tensions, and possibilities for change.

Within this framework, school self-evaluation is understood not merely as an internal improvement mechanism but as a discursive space for collective reflection and advocacy. By positioning students and teachers as co-constructors of school knowledge and improvement priorities, rather than passive sources of data, the model reframes SSE as a democratic practice with policy relevance.

The European and international significance of the study lies in its contribution to ongoing debates on student participation, democratic school governance, and context-sensitive evaluation. Although empirically grounded in a case from Türkiye, the issues identified, exam-oriented schooling and time management pressures; student well-being; access to basic care conditions such as hygiene and nutrition; guidance and counselling support; school safety; and systemic pressures experienced by teachers, resonate across many European education systems. The study therefore offers transferable insights for rethinking school self-evaluation beyond compliance-driven accountability models.

University teachers are a core part of academic communities, responsible not only for transmitting disciplinary knowledge but also for supporting students’ broader development. Ongoing societal and institutional changes—internationalization, digitalization, and increasing attention to teaching and study quality—have intensified expectations regarding university teachers’ educational competence and its continuous development. In global and European policy contexts, educational competence is repeatedly positioned as a condition for quality higher education: international recommendations emphasise that academic teaching is a public responsibility requiring specific knowledge and skills, and that professional development should correspond to the demands placed on academic staff (UNESCO, 1997, 2016; IAU, 2012, 2024). In quality assurance discussions, the links between teaching, learning, governance, and educational quality are further stressed (INQUAAHE, 2018), while European frameworks consistently highlight the importance of teacher competences for programme design, student-centred learning, and assessment practices (ENQA, 2005; BFUG, 2003, 2007, 2009, 2018, 2022). At the same time, policy discourse often leaves the concrete mechanisms of competence development under-specified and unevenly implemented in practice (OECD, 2019, 2020, 2021).

This study takes these tensions as its starting point and focuses on educational competence development in early academic careers. Educational competence is conceptualized as a broad, multidimensional construct, encompassing pedagogical, teaching, and didactic dimensions and integrating knowledge, skills, and psychosocial factors (Jucevičienė & Stanikūnienė, 2003; Vitello, Greatorex, & Shaw, 2021). The study also addresses a persistent conceptual problem: the terminological ambiguity between competence/competency in English and in Lithuanian usage, and the resulting terminological uncertainty that complicates both research and institutional communication (Rychen & Tiana, 2004; Halasz & Michel, 2011; Antera, 2021). Prior research suggests that competence-related constructs are frequently operationalised through fragmented lists and instruments that capture discrete skills while neglecting competence as an integrated whole (Moreira et al., 2023; Eskolin et al., 2023; Melle & Ferreira, 2023). This is particularly problematic in higher education, where competence development must respond to rapidly changing teaching environments, including digitalisation and shifting teacher–student relations.

The objective of the study is to explore how university teachers with up to ten years of professional experience understand and narrate educational competence development, how they describe their perceived needs and development pathways, and how they relate these experiences to formal expectations and quality-oriented frameworks. The study is guided by two research questions: (1) How do early-career university teachers narratively construct and interpret their educational competence development (pedagogical, teaching, and didactic dimensions) during the first decade of academic work? (2) How do these narratives depict the relationship between lived competence development and formal requirements, including the challenges, tensions, and enabling or constraining conditions encountered in institutional contexts?

By focusing on early-career narratives, the study aims to contribute to debates on educational improvement and quality assurance by showing how competence development is experienced, negotiated, and emotionally and professionally lived, rather than only prescribed. It offers an empirical and conceptual bridge between policy-level competence discourse and the everyday realities through which university teachers become educationally competent professionals.