Conference Agenda

At the end of the 20th century, educational science underwent significant qualitative changes. The term "pedagogy" was replaced by the term "educational science" (educology). In addition, the scope of educational science research was expanded. Educational science research now examines the education and self-education of individuals throughout their lives, both from the perspective of the direct education process and from the perspective of education as a complex phenomenon implemented by educational systems. At the beginning of the 21st century, educational science acquired fundamental aspects and its essential methodological characteristics were formulated. Pragmatically conducted educational research is not just experimentation for its own sake, but the formation of intellectual, normative, and methodological foundations of science and the establishment of effective interventions in education (Biesta, 2007, 2019). International research (Biesta, 2007) has demonstrated the importance and significance of educational research in the social and political context of society. Long-term and sustainable educational reforms have been established on a strong foundation of educational research (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2021).

Over time, society has come to accept the idea that changes in the education system, and even more so its reform, must be based on representative, reliable research data. In different countries, educational research is linked to reforms. Therefore, high-quality educational research becomes particularly relevant in the context of educational transformations (Mortimore, 2000; Cohen-Vogel et al., 2025). Not only does it confirm and prove the validity of educational policy measures and evaluate educational reform, but it also initiates innovation and enables quality assurance. The development of advanced and representative data-based educational research, which drives innovation in the education system, is treated as a breakthrough in education. In contemporary sources, the development of educational research as a fundamental sign of a breakthrough in education is associated with the institutionalisation of research and the leadership of researchers (Biesta, 2019; Reyes, 2023).

An educational breakthrough is more likely to occur in systems based on institutional mechanisms for the use of research (OECD, 2022). In most OECD countries, the application of educational research in educational practice has become a political imperative (Schlicht-Schmälzle et al., 2024). However, at the same time, the necessity and importance of research is being questioned, highlighting its perceived disconnect from real-world practice. Therefore, the OECD countries are increasingly discussing ways to strengthen the impact of educational research on educational reality (OECD, 2025). In Lithuania, the formation of an education policy based on educational research has also been studied, and the possibilities for the convergence of research and practice have been examined (Bakonis, Survutaitė, Šetkus, 2022). In this context, it is particularly relevant to examine who is developing research in the field of education and how. The main research question is: what are the signs of a breakthrough in education?

The object of the study is the expression of a breakthrough in education.

The aim of the study is to identify signs of a breakthrough in education in the context of the implementation of educational research.

In pursuing this objective, the study aims to: justify the breakthrough in education as the development of educational research; illustrate the breakthrough in education in terms of leadership, issues, and institutional and national aspects on the basis of educational research conducted in Lithuania.

Nowadays, as technology for analyzing education data gets better, more and more countries are using "data-driven" and "evidence-based" methods to decide how to run their schools. They want to use solid facts to see how well their education system is performing. International Large-Scale Assessments (ILSAs), especially PISA, have become a key part of this process (Grek, 2009). Because PISA uses very strict methods to test students, it allows people to easily compare different countries (Li et al., 2025; Volante & Mattei, 2024). This makes certain countries become "reference societies"—examples that everyone else looks up to and tries to follow (Santos & Centeno, 2023; Sellar & Lingard, 2013). As a result, PISA has a huge influence on education policies. Countries with high scores become models that others want to learn from. On the other hand, when a country gets a lower score than expected, it often causes a "PISA shock," leading to strong demands for major education reforms (Takayama, 2010; Waldow, 2009).

While many studies have looked at how PISA drives educational reform around the world, there is still very little research focusing on Taiwan. Taiwan presents an interesting case, much like Japan and Germany in the early 2000s. Before joining PISA, Taiwan did not have its own national assessment to collect data on how well students were actually learning. Because of this, PISA filled an important gap and became a key tool for policymakers. A major turning point occurred after Taiwan’s strong start in 2006; in 2009, the national ranking for Reading dropped significantly to 23rd place. This led to a local 'PISA shock,' causing both the government and the public to rethink and completely transform how reading is taught in schools

However, discussions regarding the geopolitical drivers of these reforms imply a dimension often treated as anecdotal rather than subject to rigorous academic inquiry. For instance, common narratives suggest that Taiwan's reforms were spurred by cross-strait competition following Shanghai’s top performance in 2009, or that PISA results serve as political leverage for opposition parties. Yet, these observations remain largely speculative and undocumented in formal research. To systematically analyze how these international metrics permeate national governance, this study adopts the concept of "Boundary Objects" (Leigh Star, 2010; Star & Griesemer, 1989) to examine how PISA navigates the distinct social worlds of "academics" and "policymakers."

Methodologically, we deconstruct the multifaceted "PISA ecosystem" into its constituent non-human artifacts, including test items, technical reports, official results, and media discourse. These elements are analyzed through the lens of Star and Griesemer’s (1989) four types of boundary objects, which facilitate cooperation across different social worlds without requiring consensus:

Repositories: Ordered collections of objects that are indexed in a standardized fashion so that people from different backgrounds can borrow from them.

Ideal Types: Abstract objects, such as diagrams or atlases, that are vague enough to adapt to the needs of different groups while remaining recognizable.

Coincident Boundaries: Objects that share a common external boundary but have different internal contents and meanings for different social groups.

Standardized Forms: Structured methods of communication that provide a common language to make information comparable and translatable across different sites.

By examining whether PISA-related artifacts function as these types of boundary objects, this research aims to understand how information is translated into policy language and serves as a catalyst for educational reform within Taiwan’s unique geopolitical landscape.