Conference Agenda
| Session | ||
11 SES 14 A: Quality of Education Institutions
Paper Session | ||
| Presentations | ||
11. Educational Improvement and Quality Assurance
Paper Understanding the Dimensions of Teaching Quality in Primary Education: A Systematic Review 1: Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, Germany; 2: Technische Universität Chemnitz, Germany Presenting Author:Changing political, technological, and methodological landscapes challenge established ways of understanding and legitimizing educational research. These developments make it increasingly important to examine how key educational constructs are conceptualized within this evolving ecosystem. Against this backdrop, teaching quality represents a central and widely debated construct. International interest in understanding and improving teaching quality has grown steadily, as reflected in major comparative initiatives and global reports (OECD, 2005; UNESCO, 2014). This attention is well justified, given that high‑quality teaching is theoretically assumed to be one of the most powerful classroom‑related factors influencing student learning and achievement (Kyriakides et al., 2021). Empirically, however, the evidence base is more nuanced: findings from teaching effectiveness research reveal mixed and sometimes inconsistent effects of teaching quality on student learning gains (Praetorius et al., 2025). One explanation for the heterogeneous findings lies in the diversity of models used to conceptualize teaching quality across countries, research traditions, and educational systems (Charalambous et al., 2025). In the German-speaking research tradition, teaching quality has predominantly been framed using the Three Basic Dimensions of Teaching Quality (e.g., Klieme et al., 2006), which emphasizes classroom management, cognitive activation, and supportive learning environments as key dimensions of teaching quality. In contrast, the discourse in the US is largely shaped by the Teaching Through Interactions approach (Hamre et al., 2013) and its corresponding observation instrument: the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (e.g., Pianta & Hamre, 2009), which focuses on emotional support, classroom organization, and instructional support. These examples illustrate that teaching quality is not a universally defined construct but one that is deeply embedded in cultural, institutional, and methodological contexts. Consequently, any attempt to describe or compare teaching quality must take into account how the construct is understood and conceptualized within the respective context (Praetorius et al., 2025). One context that seems particularly relevant here is the school level (Blömeke & Olsen, 2019) as school levels differ systematically in a variety of relevant contextual factors, such as classroom composition. This is particularly evident in primary schools, which are characterized, for instance, by extremely heterogeneous classroom compositions. To be able to validly interpret studies on teaching quality in primary schools, it is therefore necessary to ask how teaching quality is conceptualized in these studies. While systematic reviews on the conceptualization of teaching quality already exist for secondary education (e.g., Appels et al., 2021) or for specific models of teaching quality (e.g., Praetorius et al., 2018), such reviews with an international perspective are still lacking for the primary school sector and the specific needs of this student population. This gap is noteworthy, given the unique pedagogical challenges and developmental needs of primary school students in a constantly changing world. Despite the growing body of research in this area, a systematic overview that synthesizes international conceptualizations of teaching quality in primary education has not yet been provided. This is where the present paper comes in, in which we conducted a systematic review on teaching quality in primary education. Our aim is to identify the conceptual models used in this literature and to examine how these models are translated into concrete dimensions and subdimensions within empirical studies. Based on this objective, the research questions guiding our review are as follows:
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used To answer these questions, we conducted a systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines (Page et al., 2021). Studies were included if they focused on (1) the primary school level and (2) the quality of teaching. In addition, eligible studies had to employ an empirical approach, be written in German or English, and be published in a peer‑reviewed journal between 1995 and 2024. Based on these criteria, we carried out a systematic search in four scientific databases (Web of Science, PsycInfo, ERIC, and Fachportal Pädagogik), which initially yielded 3,880 records. After removing duplicates and studies that did not meet the formal criteria, 1,483 records remained for abstract screening. During this stage, 1,192 studies were excluded, leaving 291 records for full‑text analysis. Full‑text screening resulted in 105 studies that met all inclusion criteria. We then conducted an additional search for further relevant sources (e.g., through the bibliographies of included studies). Screening the abstracts and full texts of these additional records led to the inclusion of 25 further studies. Next, we assessed the methodological quality of all studies using the Methodological Quality Questionnaire developed by Acosta et al. (2020). Six studies did not meet the required quality threshold and were therefore excluded. In total, 124 studies were included in the final review. All stages of the screening process (abstract and full‑text screening) as well as the quality appraisal were conducted by two independent raters, with disagreements resolved through consensual validation. Following the selection process, we analyzed the studies with regard to their conceptualizations of teaching quality. First, we applied content‑analytic procedures to identify all models of teaching quality referenced or used in the studies (Research question 1). Second, we examined which dimensions and subdimensions of these models were actually conceptualized in the empirical work (Research question 2). All coding steps were carried out by two independent coders, and intercoder reliability was calculated for each model, yielding satisfactory agreement values (e.g., for Three Basic Dimensions of Teaching Quality: κ = .76). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Research question 1. We found a total of 31 conceptualizations of teaching quality in the studies. The conceptualization of the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (n = 39 studies), the Three Basic Dimensions of Teaching Quality (n = 27), the Classroom Observation System (n = 14), the Dynamic Model of Educational Effectiveness (n = 9) and the Mathematical Quality of Instruction (n = 8) were used most frequently. The remaining models appear in four or fewer studies, with 20 models being used in only one study. Additionally, some national differences in the use of the models become apparent (e.g., Classroom Assessment Scoring System predominates in the US context, Three Basic Dimensions of Teaching Quality in Germany). While a minority of studies use conceptualizations that have been specified for primary school (e.g., Classroom Assessment Scoring System for K-3 or Upper Elementary), most studies refer to models that do not differentiate between school levels (e.g., Three Basic Dimensions of Teaching Quality). Research question 2. The (sub-)dimensions used to conceptualize teaching quality in the studies are largely used as they are defined in the original models. Studies based on models that serve as foundation of a specific observation instrument (e.g., Teaching through Interactions as a framework for the Classroom Assessment Scoring System) vary particularly little in this regard. However, there are differences in the use of the Three Basic Dimensions of Teaching Quality): the subdimensions used to conceptualize the basic dimensions partially deviate from the theoretical model and vary between studies. In the presentation, we will discuss these results with respect to the primary school context and the necessity to take greater account of specific aspects of primary school quality in future conceptualizations. References Acosta, S., Garza, T., & Hsu, H.-Y. (2020). Assessing quality in systematic reviews. SAGE Open, 10(3), 1–11. Appels, L., Maeyer, S. de, Faddar, J. & van Petegem, P. (2022). Capturing quality. Educational quality in secondary analyses of international large-scale assessments: a systematic review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 33(4), 629–668. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2022.2115519 Blömeke, S., & Olsen, R. (2019). Consistency of results regarding teacher effects across subjects, school level, outcomes, and countries. Teaching and Teacher Education, 77, 170–182. Charalambous, C., Muijs, D., Lindorff, A., Steffensky, M., Ortega, L., & Miao, Z. (2025). Conceptualizing teaching quality. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 36(2), 164–191. Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., Downer, J. T., DeCoster, J., Mashburn, A. J., Jones, S. M., Brown, J. L., Cappella, E., Atkins, M., Rivers, S. E., Brackett, M. A., & Hamagami, A. (2013). Teaching Through Interactions: Testing a Developmental Framework of Teacher Effectiveness in over 4,000 Classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 113(4), 461–487. Klieme, E., Lipowsky, F., Rakoczy, K. & Ratzka, N. (2006). Qualitätsdimensionen und Wirksamkeit von Mathematikunterricht: Theoretische Grundlagen und ausgewählte Ergebnisse des Projekts "Pythagoras". In M. Prenzel (Hrsg.), Untersuchungen zur Bildungsqualität von Schule: Abschlussbericht des DFG-Schwerpunktprogramms (S. 127–146). Waxmann. Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B., Panayiotou, A., & Charalambous, E. (2021). Quality and equity in education. Routledge. OECD (2005). Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers. Paris: OECD Publishing. Page, J. M., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C. et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement. BMJ, 372(71). Pianta, R. & Hamre, B. (2009). Conceptualization, Measurement, and Improvement of Classroom Processes: Standardized Observation Can Leverage Capacity. Educational Researcher, 38(2), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09332374 Praetorius, A.-K., Klieme, E., Herbert, B. & Pinger, P. (2018). Generic Dimensions of Teaching Quality: The German Framework of Three Basic Dimensions. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 50, 407–426. Praetorius, A.-K., Jentsch, A., Luoto, J., Keller, S. D., & Fauth, B. (2025). Context in research on teaching quality. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 36(2), 263–296. UNESCO (2014). Teaching and Learning: Achieving Quality for All. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2013/14. 11. Educational Improvement and Quality Assurance
Paper Implementing the Claim–Analysis–Evidence (CAE) Framework to Develop Grade 12 Students’ Research Skills in History and Geography “Nazarbayev Intellectual school of Science and Mathematics in Taraz”,, Kazakhstan Presenting Author:Across contemporary education systems, competence-based curricular reforms increasingly emphasise higher-order thinking, argumentation, and research-oriented learning as essential outcomes of secondary education. International studies highlight that students’ success depends not only on content knowledge but also on their ability to interpret information, evaluate sources, identify causal patterns, and construct justified conclusions (Hattie, 2023; OECD, 2019). These competencies are particularly central in History and Geography, where disciplinary learning requires evidence-based reasoning, interpretation of multiple representations (texts, maps, graphs), and the integration of historical and spatial perspectives. Diagnostic assessments conducted with Grade 12 students at a Nazarbayev Intellectual School in Kazakhstan indicated that many learners remained at a descriptive level when responding to inquiry tasks. Students experienced difficulty in formulating research questions, linking evidence to claims, and building coherent explanations grounded in sources. Classroom observations further revealed a reliance on intuitive reasoning rather than systematic argument structures. This suggests the need for structured cognitive scaffolding that can support learners in making analytical thinking visible and transferable across tasks. This action research investigates the pedagogical potential of the Claim–Analysis–Evidence (CAE) framework as a structured reasoning tool designed to strengthen students’ research competence. CAE operationalises academic reasoning by requiring learners to (1) state a claim, (2) explain causal and analytical reasoning, and (3) support ideas with relevant evidence and examples. The framework aligns with principles of cognitive scaffolding, which supports learners in managing complex thinking processes through structured prompts, gradual release of responsibility, and explicit modelling. The CAE approach also draws on disciplinary literacy and inquiry-based learning, which emphasise that students learn best when they engage in authentic disciplinary practices such as source evaluation, reasoning with data, and argument construction (Spires et al., 2020; Kostaris & Chatzakis, 2022). From an international and European educational perspective, CAE supports key goals in competence-based reforms by promoting critical thinking, structured argumentation, and academically responsible communication. Research Questions
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study employed a mixed-methods action research design implemented in two Grade 12 classes (N ≈ 40) in History and Geography. The action research cycle included four phases: planning, action, observation, and reflection. During the planning stage, teachers collaboratively developed inquiry-based tasks aligned with the national curriculum and designed around authentic disciplinary problems (e.g., interpreting statistical trends, analysing historical sources, and reasoning with geographical representations). Each task required learners to generate a research question, interpret evidence, justify a claim, and formulate conclusions using the CAE structure. The intervention consisted of systematic classroom integration of CAE cards as cognitive scaffolding prompts. Students completed tasks individually and collaboratively (pair/group work) to compare arguments, refine claims, and co-construct explanations. Teachers modelled CAE responses and provided feedback through structured peer- and self-assessment. Data Collection Tools • Student inquiry task samples (pre- and post-intervention) • Classroom observation protocols (engagement levels: high/medium/low) • Analytical rubric scores (argumentation, analysis, evidence use) • Student reflective journals and self-assessment forms Data Analysis Quantitative rubric data were analysed descriptively to identify trends in skill development. Qualitative data from reflections and written responses were coded thematically (e.g., organisation of reasoning, evidence use, metacognitive comments). Triangulation across instruments strengthened validity. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Findings indicate that the systematic use of CAE cards contributed to measurable improvement in learners’ research competence and reasoning quality. Student work showed a shift from descriptive responses toward more structured arguments that integrated defensible claims, causal explanations, and source-based evidence. Quantitative rubric results demonstrated progress in: • clarity and strength of claims, • depth of analytical reasoning, • relevance and accuracy of evidence selection, • coherence of conclusions. Qualitative analysis revealed greater engagement with disciplinary sources, including historical documents, maps, and statistical datasets. Students increasingly referenced evidence explicitly and used analytical connectors to demonstrate causal logic. Reflective journals suggested growth in metacognitive awareness; students reported that CAE helped them organise thinking, communicate ideas academically, and understand expectations for summative assessment tasks. However, limitations emerged: some students’ language proficiency constrained the complexity of reasoning, and producing strong real-world examples required continuous modelling. Time constraints occasionally limited completion of extended inquiry tasks. Conclusion Overall, the CAE framework appears effective in strengthening inquiry-based learning outcomes and supports transferable competencies aligned with international educational priorities. The study suggests implications for interdisciplinary teaching and scalable classroom implementation. References Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2021). Classroom assessment and pedagogy. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 28(5), 542–560. Hattie, J. (2023). Visible learning: The sequel—A synthesis of meta-analyses on achievement. Routledge. Kostaris, C., & Chatzakis, E. (2022). Inquiry-based learning in secondary education: Effects on students’ critical thinking and engagement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 109, 103548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103548 OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results: What students know and can do (Volume I). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en Özüdoğru, G. (2021). Participatory Educational Research (PER). Participatory Educational Research, 8(4), 321–333. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.21.92.8.4 Panadero, E. (2020). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 422. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00422 Spires, H. A., Kerkhoff, S. N., & Graham, A. C. (2020). Disciplinary literacy and inquiry-based learning: Promoting deep learning in secondary education. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 64(1), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1046 Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2019). Higher order thinking in science classrooms: Students’ learning and teachers’ professional development. Springer. 11. Educational Improvement and Quality Assurance
Paper Improving Instructional Quality in Physics through Structured Multilingual Workbooks: A Classroom-Based Study in Upper Secondary Education 1: Nazarbayev Intellectual School, Karagandy, Kazakhstan; 2: Nazarbayev Intellectual School, Karagandy, Kazakhstan; 3: Nazarbayev Intellectual School, Karagandy, Kazakhstan; 4: Nazarbayev Intellectual School, Karagandy, Kazakhstan; 5: Nazarbayev Intellectual School, Karagandy, Kazakhstan; 6: Nazarbayev Intellectual School, Karagandy, Kazakhstan Presenting Author:This study makes both theoretical and practical contributions to research on instructional quality in multilingual secondary science education. First, it contributes to pedagogical research by providing empirical evidence on how structured, multilingual physics workbooks can function as an effective instructional intervention in upper secondary classrooms where subjects are taught through multiple languages. By integrating sequenced explanations, scaffolded problem-solving tasks, visual representations, and subject-specific academic vocabulary, the workbooks support students’ simultaneous development of conceptual understanding and disciplinary language. The findings extend existing research on CLIL and multilingual STEM education by demonstrating how carefully designed learning materials can reduce cognitive load and improve coherence between instruction, learning activities, and assessment. Second, the study contributes to instructional quality research by highlighting the role of teacher-developed materials as a mechanism for improving lesson organization, pacing, and formative assessment practices. The workbooks provided a consistent instructional framework that supported alignment between curriculum objectives, classroom activities, and exam-oriented tasks. Teacher reflection data indicate that the structured design enabled systematic identification of instructional challenges and informed iterative improvements in teaching practice. Third, the study offers a methodological contribution through the use of a classroom-based mixed-methods approach that combines learning outcome data with qualitative insights into instructional processes and student experience. This approach illustrates how practitioner-led research can generate robust evidence while remaining closely connected to classroom realities. Finally, the study contributes practical value by demonstrating that low-cost, scalable instructional tools can meaningfully enhance teaching quality and student achievement in linguistically diverse contexts. The findings are relevant for teachers, school leaders, and education researchers seeking sustainable strategies to support high-quality physics instruction in multilingual education systems. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study employed a classroom-based mixed-methods research design within a teacher-led pedagogical inquiry framework. The methodology was chosen to examine both measurable learning outcomes and qualitative aspects of instructional quality in a multilingual upper secondary physics classroom.The study was conducted with upper secondary students at Nazarbayev Intellectual School, where physics is taught in English as a third language. The intervention consisted of the systematic use of teacher-developed structured multilingual physics workbooks across selected instructional units.The workbooks functioned as the primary instructional intervention. They included sequenced conceptual explanations, scaffolded step-by-step problem-solving tasks, subject-specific academic vocabulary with diagrams, homework assignments, challenging problems, and exam-oriented tasks aligned with curriculum requirements. 1)Quantitative data were collected through: Pre- and post-intervention assessments, including diagnostic tests Summative examination results aligned with curriculum objectives These data were used to compare student performance before and after the implementation of the workbooks, with particular attention to multi-step reasoning and conceptual problem-solving tasks. 2)Qualitative data were gathered through: Classroom observations focusing on instructional coherence, lesson pacing, and student engagement Analysis of student written work, examining structure, use of physics terminology, and problem-solving approaches Student feedback questionnaires, capturing perceptions of clarity, support, and learning processes Teacher reflective notes, recorded after each instructional unit to document observed challenges, strengths, and areas for improvement. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively to identify trends in student achievement. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically to identify recurring patterns related to instructional quality, student engagement, and language-related learning challenges. Triangulation of data sources was used to enhance the credibility of the findings. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The study indicates that the use of structured multilingual physics workbooks contributes positively to both student learning outcomes and instructional quality in upper secondary physics education. Quantitative analysis of pre- and post-intervention assessments shows measurable improvements in students’ exam performance, particularly in tasks requiring multi-step reasoning, conceptual understanding, and the application of physics principles. A reduction in language-related errors and greater consistency in problem-solving structure were also observed in student work. Qualitative findings suggest that the workbooks enhanced instructional coherence by providing a clear and consistent framework linking lesson objectives, classroom activities, and assessment tasks. The structured design supported more effective lesson pacing and facilitated formative assessment by enabling the teacher to identify learning difficulties more systematically and respond through targeted instructional adjustments. Students reported that the inclusion of step-by-step explanations, visual representations, and subject-specific vocabulary improved clarity and helped them engage more confidently with physics content taught through a third language. From a pedagogical perspective, the study demonstrates that teacher-developed instructional materials can function as a practical mechanism for reflective practice and continuous improvement. The process of reviewing student responses and documenting areas for improvement after each unit informed subsequent teaching decisions and material refinement, strengthening the relationship between knowing and acting in classroom practice. Overall, the findings highlight the potential of low-cost, scalable instructional tools to support equitable access to high-quality physics education in multilingual school contexts. The study contributes evidence that structured workbooks can enhance both student achievement and instructional effectiveness, offering practical implications for teachers and school leaders seeking sustainable strategies to improve science teaching under changing linguistic and educational conditions. References Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1945–1969. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. De Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38(2), 105–134. Johnstone, A. H. (2006). Chemical education research in Glasgow in perspective. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7(2), 49–63. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Springer. Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Open University Press. 11. Educational Improvement and Quality Assurance
Paper Supporting Spiritual Formation in Christian Ethos Schools: A Systems View Using School and Classroom Climate 1: Charles Darwin University, Australia; 2: Curtin University Presenting Author:Spiritual formation—understood as a lifelong, biblically guided process of growth and transformation—has been associated with self‑control, prosocial behaviour, self‑esteem, and reduced risk behaviours across diverse faith backgrounds. Yet attendance at a Christian ethos school does not guarantee students’ spiritual development, and practices such as chapel or Bible classes are often insufficient to catalyse meaningful change. This submission advances a systems view integrating learning environment research with spiritual formation—positioning students’ perceptions of school and classroom climate as pivotal levers for improvement—and examines how a systems‑informed framework, such as the Supporting Spiritual Formation Framework (SSFF), can guide efforts to enhance spiritual formation. Grounded in Bronfenbrenner’s social ecological theory and informed by the Systems View of School Climate and cultural ecological perspectives, we introduce the SSFF. The framework conceptualises spiritual formation as emerging from dynamic interactions among nested systems: macrosystem (cultural values and Christian principles), community exosystem (board and church governance), school exosystem (policies and structures), school microsystem (students’ lived experience of school climate), classroom nanosystem (pedagogy and management), and relational nanosystems (teacher–student and peer relationships). Central to the SSFF is the premise that perceived reality—as reflected in students’ reports—should guide school improvement. A literature‑informed synthesis identified twelve malleable factors within schools’ control that influence spiritual formation (e.g., psychological safety, curriculum integration, inclusion and respect, competent teaching, mission alignment, community partnerships, service learning). These informed the design of the Christian Education Health Check (CEHC), a 68‑item instrument with 13 scales mapping onto the SSFF systems (e.g., School Connectedness, Teacher Support, Peer Connectedness, Bible Teaching, Bible Teaching Across Subjects, Inspirational Teaching, Freedom to Question, Reporting and Seeking Help, Affirming Diversity, Learning to Live as a Christian, Understanding the World and Social Problems, Encouraging Engagement with Spiritual Disciplines, Practical Service). The CEHC has been administered to 2,196 students across five Christian ethos schools and demonstrates robust psychometric properties via exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. We illustrate research‑to‑practice translation through a case study of “Roseberry Christian School” (pseudonym; ~600 students, Grades EC–10), which implemented a six‑step, co‑designed improvement process extending established learning environment cycles through collaborative codesign and leadership‑driven system planning. Data included CEHC scales plus four outcomes (Christian spiritual formation, moral identity, resilience, hope) for 188 students (Years 5–10), complemented by focus groups (n = 54; Years 7–10). Descriptive analyses revealed strengths (Peer Connectedness, Adult Support, Bible Teaching, Learning to Live as a Christian) and areas for growth (Inspirational Teaching, World and Social Problems, Practical Service), alongside concerns about Reporting and Seeking Help. Disaggregation showed less favourable experiences for students preferring not to state gender. Structural equation modelling indicated spiritual formation was positively associated with Inspirational Teaching and Peer Connectedness, not significantly linked with Bible Teaching per se, and negatively associated with Reporting and Seeking Help and learning about World and Social Problems. Interviews explained these patterns: students valued authentic, meaning‑focused pedagogy and relational sharing by teachers; they reported few opportunities to explore complex social issues or translate learning into constructive action, and feared peer backlash when reporting concerns. Co‑design workshops produced short‑ and long‑term actions (e.g., age‑tailored chapel, speaker diversity, student‑driven topic selection, professional learning on facilitating dialogue, redesign of Christian Studies), while leadership created two new roles to embed service learning and re‑envision chapel and Christian formation. The SSFF functioned as both conceptual heuristic and practical improvement guide. We conclude by advocating for longitudinal, multilevel, and generative designs to evaluate systems‑level change, and for sustained, relationally grounded practices that make room for questioning, reflection, and agency—across subjects, not only in Christian education. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study adopts an ecological, systems oriented approach to investigate how malleable school and classroom level factors relate to students’ spiritual formation. The SSFF integrates Bronfenbrenner’s nested systems with learning environment constructs (school and classroom climate) and emphasises students’ perceptions as the primary evidence base for improvement. Instrument Development Guided by an empirical review of school based influences on spiritual formation, we developed the Christian Education Health Check (CEHC). Thirteen scales (68 items; five point frequency from “almost never” to “almost always”) assess exosystem, microsystem, classroom nanosystem, and relational nanosystem factors, plus cross system constructs (e.g., Learning to Live as a Christian; Practical Service). Validation across five schools (N=2,196) employed exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, establishing strong psychometric properties suitable for school level diagnostic feedback and research. Case Study Site and Participants At Roseberry Christian School (pseudonym; ~600 enrolments; regional context; policy requiring teachers to affirm the school’s statement of faith), the CEHC was administered to students in Years 5–10 (n=188; consented participants present on the day). Background characteristics (gender, religious affiliation, English as an additional language, birth country) were collected to contextualise subgroup perceptions. Phase two comprised focus group interviews with 54 students (Years 7–10), organised by year level. Procedures Data collection proceeded in two phases. Phase one combined the CEHC with four outcomes (Christian spiritual formation, moral identity, resilience, hope). Phase two used semi structured focus group protocols informed by phase one results, concentrating on scales with lower means or strong associations with spiritual formation. Analytic Strategy Quantitative analyses included descriptive statistics (means, SDs, box and whisker plots) overall and by subgroups, followed by structural equation modelling (SEM) to examine relationships between CEHC scales and spiritual formation; non significant paths were removed stepwise. Given observed between school variability in prior work, SEM results were reported for the individual school to preserve contextual nuance. Qualitative data were transcribed and analysed using a phenomenographic methodology to identify themes and sub themes explaining quantitative patterns (e.g., limits of content heavy Bible teaching absent dialogic meaning making; perceived risks in reporting). Improvement Process Findings were first discussed with leadership, then with staff through two co design workshops, extending a five step learning environment improvement cycle to six steps by adding (a) explicit collaborative codesign and (b) leadership system level planning before implementation and reassessment. Actions targeted both proximal (classroom/relational) and distal (policy/structure) levers, with planned re administration of the CEHC for monitoring. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This study shows that a systems informed framework such as the Supporting Spiritual Formation Framework (SSFF) can guide school improvement efforts by reframing spiritual formation as a relational and perception driven ecological process rather than a program or event. By emphasising interactions among school wide structures, classroom environments, and daily relationships, the SSFF helps schools identify conditions under which students’ spiritual growth is most likely to flourish. These include psychologically safe and dialogic classrooms, caring and authentic peer and teacher relationships, coherent school practices that model Christian values, and opportunities for students to connect faith with contemporary issues and acts of service. The Roseberry case illustrates how the SSFF supports diagnostic insight and targeted action. The framework helped explain why Bible content alone did not predict spiritual formation: students also required space to wrestle with difficult questions, make meaning, and develop agency. Structural equation modelling showed strong links between spiritual formation, Inspirational Teaching, and Peer Connectedness, underscoring the centrality of pedagogy and relationships. Negative associations with Reporting and Seeking Help and with learning about World and Social Problems revealed systemic barriers, including perceptions of risk or helplessness that may inhibit growth. These insights enabled the school to prioritise actions addressing both strengths and vulnerabilities across system levels. By guiding co designed improvements—such as age tailored chapels, diverse speakers, professional learning to support dialogue, and curriculum redesign—the SSFF demonstrated its practical value as a tool for coherent, context sensitive change. Methodologically, it reinforced the importance of treating students’ perceptions as actionable evidence and highlighted the need for longitudinal, multilevel approaches to model nested influences over time. Overall, the SSFF guides improvement by helping leaders and teachers align structures, relationships, and pedagogy to cultivate conditions where questioning, reflection, agency, and service can support deep and authentic spiritual formation. References Aldridge, J. M., & McChesney, K. (2018). The relationships between school climate and adolescent mental health and wellbeing: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Research, 88, 121–145. Aldridge, J. M., Rijken, P. E., & Fraser, B. J. (2021). Improving learning environments through whole school collaborative action research. Learning Environments Research, 24(2), 183–205. Bell, L. M., & Aldridge, J. M. (2014). Investigating the use of student perception data for teacher reflection and classroom improvement. Learning Environments Research, 17(3), 371–388. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. Casson, A., & Cooling, T. (2020). Religious education for spiritual bricoleurs? Students’ perceptions in ten Christian ethos secondary schools. Journal of Beliefs & Values, 41(1), 20–33. Cooling, T., & Green, E. H. (2015). What If Learning: findings on a Christian approach to teaching and learning. International Journal of Christianity & Education, 19(2), 96–107. Crick, R. D., & Jelfs, H. (2011). Spirituality, learning and personalisation. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 16(3), 197–217. Estep, J. R., & Breckenridge, L. (2019). The ecology and social dynamics of childhood spirituality. In Children’s spirituality: Christian perspectives, research, and applications (pp. 249–265). Wipf and Stock. Fraser, B. J., & Aldridge, J. (2017). Improving classrooms through assessment of learning environments. In J. P. Bakken (Ed.), Classrooms, Vol. 1: Assessment practices for teachers and student improvement strategies (pp. 91–107). Nova. Horan, A. P. (2017). Fostering spiritual formation of millennials in Christian schools. Journal of Research on Christian Education, 26(1), 56–77. McLure, F. I., & Aldridge, J. M. (2023). The Christian Education Health Check: A survey for understanding church school climate. International Journal of Christianity & Education, 27(2), 185–208. Pike, M. A. (2011). The value of Christian ethos schooling for secular students. Journal of Research on Christian Education, 20(2), 138–154. Rudasill, K. M., Snyder, K. E., Levinson, H., & Adelson, J. L. (2018). Systems view of school climate: A theoretical framework for research. Educational Psychology Review, 30(1), 35–60. Seymour, J. (2024). ‘Taking God seriously’: Hindu and Muslim stakeholders’ reception of a school’s Christian ethos. International Journal of Christianity & Education. Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 357–385. Yoder, A. C. (2020). Spiritual Formation Strategies for Generation Z Students in a Secondary Christian School (Doctoral dissertation). Grand Canyon University. | ||