Conference Agenda

This symposium builds on the Panel Discussion held at ECER 2025: Professional Learning at Scale: Building a Research Agenda. That session highlighted the scarcity of comparative, cross‑national research theorising how professional learning (PL) is organised, governed and enacted at system level – despite renewed international interest in developing teacher learning ecosystems for continuous improvement (Harris & Jones, 2025; Hill et al., 2021). Bringing together cases from Europe and the USA, the panel called for the development of a cumulative knowledge base and more sophisticated conceptual tools for understanding the complex processes through which nations attempt to scale PL.

This symposium responds to that call, aiming to deepen and extend the research agenda articulated last year by presenting four empirically rich, theoretically grounded papers from Scotland, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Florida (USA). Each paper examines how research‑informed PL is entangled with system governance, political expectations, evidence infrastructures and evolving roles at the research-practice-policy interface, issues increasingly foregrounded in the literature on system learning and educational improvement (Farrell et al., 2021; Greany & Earley, 2021). Together, these papers ask how PL systems ‘know’ and ‘act’ at scale and what kinds of infrastructures, relationships and evidence make system learning possible.

We begin from the shared recognition that PL at scale cannot be understood through isolated case studies. Instead, it requires cross-context investigation of the structures and politics that support or inhibit system-level learning, including: how evidence is gathered and interpreted; how infrastructure shapes collective inquiry; how stakeholders negotiate competing purposes; and how tensions are handled when demands for fast evidence meet the realities of incremental change. The symposium positions PL as both a multilevel social practice and a site of political contestation.

Paper 1 (Scotland) examines the boundary‑spanning research and evaluation function within the Scottish Government’s Centre for Teaching Excellence. Drawing on expansive learning theory (Engeström & Sannino, 2021) and critical policy sociology, it explores tensions between ‘fast evidence’ demanded by policymakers and slower developmental processes underpinning teacher learning. It reframes evaluation not as compliance, but as a catalyst for system‑level knowing and acting.

Paper 2 (Netherlands) presents a nationwide mixed‑methods study of collective PL, alongside a reflexive analysis of the Dutch Inspectorate’s dual role as evaluator and commissioner. Grounded in complexity theory and ‘steering dynamics’ (Waslander et al., 2020), it illuminates relational tensions across micro, meso, and macro levels, and explores how accountability regimes shape schools’ engagement in collaborative learning.

Paper 3 (Sweden) explores a transforming national landscape marked by close‑to‑practice research funders, university‑based PL, and a large R&D institute connecting hundreds of practitioners and researchers. Drawing on improvement science, networked learning and practice architectures, it offers a meta‑reflective account of partnership, knowledge production and constraints imposed by expectations for immediate impact.

Paper 4 (Florida) analyses a statutory statewide mandate positioning the Lastinger Center as Florida’s partner for research‑based PL. Using implementation science, it details the creation of a data‑intensive EduData R&D hub integrating longitudinal data, secure analytics and rapid‑cycle evaluation. It highlights tensions between rigour, security, political timelines and the need for timely evidence to inform policy.

Collective contribution: Across these diverse settings, this symposium advances the cross‑national research agenda initiated through the 2025 ECER Panel, offering:

1. Comparative insights into national infrastructures for large-scale PL and system learning.
2. Conceptual integration across expansive learning, improvement and implementation science, complexity, networked learning and practice architectures.
3. Commentary on design principles for PL systems that support inquiry, teacher agency and evidence‑informed action.
4. Contribution to a cumulative international knowledge base, responding directly to last year’s call to theorise cross-nationally.

National ambitions to enhance teaching quality increasingly rely on research-informed professional learning (PL) delivered at scale, yet the relationship between knowledge production, political imperatives, and meaningful change in practice remains complex. This paper explores the emerging research and evaluation function within Scotland’s newly established Centre for Teaching Excellence (CfTE), a national organisation funded by the Scottish Government to support teachers in engaging with and in research as part of a coherent, system-wide PL offer. As members of the Research and Evaluation team for CfTE, we occupy a boundary role shaped by governmental expectations for rapid evidence of impact and by scholarly aspirations to theorise how PL becomes transformative for teachers and the wider system (Kennedy, 2014). This dual positioning offers a unique vantage point on what it means to know and act at scale within a national reform landscape. Adopting a critical policy sociology approach with an ‘explicit emancipatory political agenda[s]’ (Savage et al., 2021, p. 308), we engaged in collaborative critical reflection to examine epistemic tensions inherent in this work. Government seeks demonstrable impact at pace to justify investment and inform decisions, yet embedding PL in classroom practice is by nature developmental and slow. Early signs of change are often ambiguous, distributed, and context sensitive. Researchers face the challenge of designing evaluative approaches that provide timely, credible insights without collapsing complex learning processes into simplistic indicators. These tensions are intensified by the political nature of evidence: what counts as valid knowledge, how data are interpreted, and which outcomes are privileged, are all shaped by shifting policy priorities (Putansu, 2020; Taylor & Balloch, 2005). Working within this political whirlpool requires methodological integrity, relational skill, and theoretical clarity to balance competing demands for knowledge and action. Against this backdrop, we argue for a dual orientation in researching PL at scale: meeting policymakers’ immediate informational needs while cultivating a longer-term inquiry capable of contributing to international literature. Drawing on theoretical insights from expansive learning theory (Engeström & Sannino, 2010), we propose that research and evaluation in national PL systems should be conceptualised not simply as accountability mechanisms but as catalysts for system-level knowing and acting, processes through which teachers, organisations, and policymakers co-construct shared understandings and mobilise them toward sustainable improvement. By foregrounding this theoretical commitment, CfTE’s research function seeks to move beyond isolated examples of teacher change to understand conditions under which PL at scale can generate equitable, research-informed system learning.

Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2009.12.002 Kennedy, A. (2014). Understanding continuing professional development: The need for theory to impact on policy and practice. Professional Development in Education, 40(5). https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2014.955122 Putansu, S. (2020). Politics and policy knowledge in federal education: Confronting the evidence-based proverb. Palgrave McMillan https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38395-4 Savage, G. C., Gerrard, J., Gale, T., & Molla, T. (2021). The politics of critical policy sociology: Mobilities, moorings and elite networks. Critical Studies in Education, 62(3), 306–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2021.1878467 Taylor, D., & Balloch, S. (Eds). (2005). The Politics of Evaluation: Participation and Policy Implementation. Bristol University Press; Cambridge Core. https://doi.org/10.46692/9781847421210

In recent years, a shift has emerged from individual teacher professionalization toward collective professional development—where teachers pursue shared learning goals aimed at improving their joint teaching practice. Research suggests that collective learning fosters innovation, increases teacher efficacy and enjoyment, and strengthens collaboration and student-centered teaching (VanGrieken et al., 2017; Hauge, 2019). Despite its promise, little is known about how collective professional development is organized within schools. The purpose of this presentation is twofold. The first aim is to provide a representative picture of how collective professional development is currently organized in Dutch primary, secondary, and vocational schools. It explores how teachers and school leaders experience the process of organizing collective learning, the challenges they face in doing so, and the perceived impact on teaching practice. The presentation of these findings is based on a large quantitative survey study and in-depth case studies in all school sectors in which both teachers and school leaders are involved. This creates the basis for the second aim of the presentation namely, to explore the tension inherent in studying the state of education on behalf of the Inspectorate of Education, an institution that itself plays a formal role in evaluating educational quality. This dual position introduces a reflective layer: while the study seeks to understand how schools organize and experience collective professional learning, it must also remain sensitive to how schools perceive the Inspectorate’s involvement, and how this may shape their responses, practices, or willingness to engage in deeper forms of collaboration. Acknowledging this tension is essential for interpreting findings and understanding the relational dynamics between schools (micro-meso), educational sectors, and the system-level actors (macro) who evaluate them. Insights from studies on the complexity of professional learning in the broader policy landscape (e.g., King et al, 2023) and ‘steeringy dynamics’ (Waslander et al., 2020) will be used for the reflection on these tensions.

Hauge, K. (2019). Teachers’ collective professional development in school: A review study. Cogent Education, 6(1), 1619223. King, F., Poekert, P., & Pierre, T. (2023). A pragmatic meta-model to navigate complexity in teachers’ professional Learning. Professional Development in Education, 49(6), 958–977. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2023.2248478 Vangrieken, K., Meredith, C., Packer, T., & Kyndt, E. (2017). Teacher communities as a context for professional development: A systematic review. Teaching and teacher education, 61, 47-59. Waslander, S., Hooge, E. H., Theisens, H. C., & Pater, C. J. (2020). Steering in complex education systems. Why similar aims can have dramatically different results. Journal of Education Policy, 35(2), 168-187.

In Sweden, professional learning practices are going through transformative changes. Since the beginning of 2000 there has been a growth of so-called ‘close-to-practice research funders’, supporting practice-based research that also enhances professional learning through collaborative research and development. Another newly introduced change is a national professional development program built on university courses. These changes are supported by policymakers, universities and school owners (municipalities and private school companies) since they predict positive outcomes, although in different ways. Policymakers and school owners strive for research-informed school development and best practice evolvement on large scale. For universities, new areas for expansion open up when existing responsibility for pre-service teacher training expands to in-service education, and close-to-practice research provide new opportunities to fund research in and with schools. These new conditions create tensions in practice when different expectations manifest themselves through actors’ and stakeholders’ actions in the new landscape of professional learning and research (Jarl et al., 2025; McGeown & Sjölund, 2025). A case study of a new form of research institute will be presented to exemplify and problematize how these conditions are expressed in practice and how they contribute to system learning. School owners’ national organizations fund the institute and decide what knowledge and development areas to organize R&D-programs around. In every program, around 200-400 teachers, principals, development leaders and school directors from different municipalities/private school companies participate. Researchers with relevant research are connected to each program. I have been involved in two programs so far, from which I will use data and experiences in a critical, meta-reflective, action research self-study (Olin et al., 2020). The programs nurture practice-based research and research-informed school development to happen on a larger scale than both school actors and researchers have previously experienced. Professional learning happens on many levels at the same time in collaboration between researchers and practitioners. These conditions also shape constraints and tensions. The research becomes questioned if it doesn’t immediately lead to practice improvements. The role of researchers as critical friends becomes a challenge. Also, expectations vary in relation to what kind of knowledge production is desirable in relation to both professional learning and research. Hence, even though the new infrastructure for research-practice partnership may seem challenging in many ways, it also opens up new possibilities with promising prospects in sight. An over-arching question concerns what kind of learning comes out of these large-scale initiatives and how that will impact system learning outcomes.

Jarl, M., Liljenberg, M., Andersson, K., & Taube, M. (2025). The importance of organizational capacities for collaborative research: boundary crossings within a Swedish research–practice partnership. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 11(2), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2024.2369344 McGeown, S., & Sjölund, S. (2025). Research‐practice partnerships in education: Benefits, challenges, methodological considerations and key enablers for change. British Journal of Educational Psychology. DOI: 10.1111/bjep.12785 Olin A., Francisco S., Salo P., Pörn M., Karlberg-Granlund G. (2020). Collaborative Professional Learning for Changing Educational Practices. In: Mahon K., Edwards-Groves C., Francisco S., Kaukko M., Kemmis S., Petrie K. (eds) Pedagogy, Education, and Praxis in Critical Times (pp.141-162). Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6926-5_7

This presentation explores how the UF Lastinger Center, under its statutory mandate as Florida’s statewide partner for research‑based professional learning and innovation, is designing an EduData R&D hub. The hub will leverage the state’s longitudinal data warehouse, the Lastinger Center’s secure Data Lagoon, UF’s HiPerGator supercomputer, and faculty researchers to create an engine for continuous improvement. The presentation outlines the hub’s emerging architecture along three dimensions: (1) data governance and privacy infrastructure, including the GADRRS data‑sharing agreement; (2) integrated data systems that facilitate rapid‑cycle evaluation of professional learning, curriculum, and educational technologies; and (3) cross‑sector partnerships that connect state agencies, school systems, researchers, and ed‑tech providers in a coherent R&D ecosystem. Framed by the King et al. (2023) meta-model for evaluating and designing professional learning, the presentation will use examples from statewide projects to show how evidence is being mobilised to redesign programs, inform policy, and align investments with demonstrated impact. The tensions inherent in advancing these projects, i.e., between data security and access for analysis and between rigorous research and timely reporting to inform decisions and policy, will also be explored. The presentation will conclude by proposing design principles for state‑ or national‑level R&D infrastructures.

King, F., Poekert, P., & Pierre, T. (2023). A pragmatic meta-model to navigate complexity in teachers’ professional Learning. Professional Development in Education, 49(6), 958–977. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2023.2248478