Conference Agenda

Despite two decades of global emphasis on the Use of Research Evidence (URE) to improve educational practice, international assessments indicate a decline in student outcomes across many systems, notwithstanding continuous reform efforts (OECD, 2023a; Sahlberg, 2023). This discrepancy suggests that the prevailing focus on standardized, instrumental applications of evidence may be less effective than more nuanced, conceptual engagement. While interest in URE has expanded significantly across various sectors (Rickinson et al., 2023), there remains a pressing need to further conceptualize how research is actually integrated within the school environment and to identify the mechanisms that govern its use.

This systematic review addresses that gap by providing a comprehensive overview of how research use in schools is framed and described in recent empirical literature. By identifying the primary barriers and enablers of URE, the study aims to examine how these empirical findings align with a consolidated multi-level framework. In doing so, it seeks to move beyond the symbolic appropriation of evidence toward a more sophisticated understanding of research use that can foster meaningful educational impact.

Previous reviews and reports have established a substantial cumulative knowledge base for URE. Following the seminal debates of the late 1990s (Hargreaves, 1996, 1997; Hammersley, 1997, 2000), Hemsley-Brown and Sharp (2003b) argued that the cultural shifts necessary to support URE must originate in policy. While subsequent strategies and the rise of "What Works" clearinghouses sought to address this (Révai, 2022), research use remained scarce by the early 2010s. This led Dagenais et al. (2012b) and later Finnigan (2021) to call for clearer conceptualization and more empirical rigor—calls that have been answered by recent large-scale projects across the US, Australia, UK, and Norway (Farley-Ripple et al., 2022; Godfrey & Brown, 2019; Mausethagen et al., 2023; Rickinson et al., 2023).

To integrate this evolving knowledge base, this review employs a framework synthesis to map emerging themes. We developed an initial consolidated framework anchored in the QURE framework (Rickinson et al., 2020), while incorporating the Depth of Use model (Farley-Ripple et al., 2018), the research-engaged school ecosystem (Godfrey & Brown, 2019), research-literacy sensitivities (Eriksen, 2022), and perspectives on internal and external complexity (Kvernbekk, 2016; Perry & Morris, 2023). These frameworks range in scope from individual professional virtues to broad systemic conditions; by consolidating them, this review aims to capture the multi-level nature of URE and address the fragmentation identified in previous research.

To get a thorough and updated overview of various conceptualizations and components used in international research on URE, this systematic review addresses the following research questions:

• How is use of research evidence framed and described in empirical research on use of research in schools?
  • What components of research use emerge in empirical research?
  • What relations among these components are identified?
• Which barriers and enablers of research use in schools are described in extant empirical research?

Numerous researchers have examined different design features deemed crucial for high-quality teacher professional development (TPD) and, thus, its success (e.g., Bragg et al., 2021; Meyer et al., 2023). The design features include aspects such as content focus, coherence, collaboration, personalization, coaching, feedback and reflection, practical relevance, and active learning (e.g., Bragg et al., 2021; Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Desimone, 2009). Following all the design features listed across the different sources poses challenges for facilitators, given the impracticality of implementing so many different features—especially with limited resources. Additionally, the importance of some design features is discussed controversially.

We would argue, that some design features are of organizational nature (duration, format), while others refer to the process of the TPD and could be summarized as constitutes of TPD quality. Recent research categorized TPD quality into broader dimensions to which specific design features can be allocated (Meyer et al., 2023; Richter & Richter, 2024; Sims et al., 2021). Richter and Richter (2024) focused on cognitive activation, practical relevance, social interaction, and a clear structure. There are studies investigating for instance the TPD quality in online and face-to-face formats (e.g., Mulaimović et al., 2024), but to our knowledge, there is almost no research that systematically investigates the association between the organizational nature of TPD (e.g. its format or duration) and TPD quality.

Further, the current body of research on TPD quality has primarily drawn from studies that have investigated carefully designed, planned, and implemented single TPD activities in controlled settings, often directly implemented by researchers or developers who infuse these TPD activities with design features that can contribute to high-quality TPD. In contrast, there is only sparse research on field-based TPD. Only a few studies have investigated the many different ways of offering field-based TPD, which spans various topics and formats (Fischer et al., 2018), leaving a gap in our understanding of field-based TPD quality.

The area of field-based TPD is especially interesting in terms of relevance of education research. Critics in education research argue, that research prioritizes rigor over addressing practical realities (Schneider, 2009) and gaps persists between research production and its use in policy and practice (e.g., Farley-Ripple et al., 2018). Educators for example value research with local data (e.g., Coburn et al., 2009) and Research-Practice-Partnerships (RPP, see Farrell et al., 2021) promise to increase the relevance and usability of education research.

In this study, our objective is to examine and compare various types of TPD, using data from a statewide evaluation (collected with an instrument developed in a RPP). We plan to compare online and face-to-face TPD, TPD series and one-offs, TPD with and without self-learning phases, and TPD with varying duration and number of participants. Therefore, we will investigate three research questions (RQ).

• RQ1: What differences can be found in the ratings of TPD quality (cognitive activation, social interaction, and content focus) between the various types of TPD?
• RQ3: How does the type of TPD affect quality ratings after the characteristics of the TPD activities and participants are controlled for?

At present, schools are facing rapidly changing environments worldwide, with issues ranging from artificial intelligence to biotechnology, from cyberbullying to cognitive and socialization deficits in disadvantaged students. In this context, they are struggling to move beyond the ultimately nineteenth-century concept of education, which, despite having evolved somewhat, remains in most cases essentially focused only on instruction (Peurach et al., 2019).

1. Educational research and implementation in schools

Over the years, professional learning and development (PLD) has become increasingly important in schools, in a world where lifelong learning is now an established and acknowledged reality (Ostinelli, 2023; Drude, Maheu, & Hilty, 2019; Abdalina et al., 2022). One aspect that is often underplayed is teacher research knowledge and influence on teaching and learning in classrooms and educational institutions. To what extent do schools implement and integrate in their culture significant, sustainable and effective innovations based on research in education, particularly in the field of teacher PLD? It is known that in a number of situations – even in the case of positive collaborations – when the time goes on, the effects of educational research fade out (Bailey et al., 2020), surviving perhaps as pleasant memories rapidly submerged by the impending habitual practices. In fact, schools should integrate in their daily practice and in their culture evidences and findings coming from teacher PLD research, but this happens only rarely (Ostinelli, 2016). A good solution could be for them to act as authentic professional learning communities (Turner et al., 2018; Johannesson, 2022), including in their action the embedding of results coming from educational research. But how much this kind of interaction is present and well-functioning in schools?

3. The learning professional community, a key element for embedding

Nowadays, schools are often referred to as learning professional communities. However, this concept is not always understood in the same way by different authors (Christensen, 2025). One of the aims of this presentation is to provide an initial classification of this notion, based on a comprehensive meta-analysis of texts published to date, which should lead to a categorisation of the most common meanings attributed to the term. These meanings will then be summarised in relation to the concept of embedding (Nunno et al., 2015; Geijsel et al., 2020; Sing et al., 2018), aimed at establishing whether these communities practise or not this approach. Embedding research in schools involves fostering a culture of evidence-based practice, where educators use research findings to inform teaching, curriculum, and decision-making. Key strategies can include actionable steps such as regular, collaborative staff discussions, implementing action research, updating syllabi with current studies, and dedicating time for reflection.

4. Forms of organisation in schools

Currently, schools are implementing various types of interventions aimed at improving and innovating their educational activities:

• Communities of practice
• Coaching
• Mentoring
• Leadership development
• Action research

This study seeks to highlight how these practices are or are not implemented, together with embedding, within educational institutions that define themselves as professional learning communities. This is verified through meta-analyses of the literature relative to each category, resulting in a summary table.

5. A holistic conception of school processes

The basic idea is to verify the extent to which embedding works and can function as a structuring element in a discourse of co-construction within educational institutions, capable of highlighting their holistic nature as socio-ecological systems (Ostinelli, 2023). The expectation is that educational institutions that integrate communities of practice, coaching, leadership, etc. organically in their practice as professional learning communities will be able to ideally perform embedding of educational research results and evidence in their daily practice.

The importance of continuous professional development (CPD) for teachers is well established in the research literature. Scholars have repeatedly underscored the need to move from traditional forms of professional development that takes place outside the context of teachers’ everyday practice (e.g., Darling-Hammond et al., 2017).

This paper presents some findings from the Icelandic project Sustainable Professional Development for Teachers to Enhance the Quality of Teaching and Learning in Language Art and STEM Subjects through the Use of Video Recordings in Lessons (SAEG). The project is conceptualized as a development and research initiative that ran for two years (2024–2025), followed by a year of follow-up activities in 2026. The project’s central focus was the empowerment of teachers to improve the quality of their instruction by using video recordings of their own teaching. The follow-up phase aimed to further support teachers in applying newly acquired knowledge both in their own classrooms and through collaboration within their professional communities.

The initiative was carried out through close collaboration among researchers from the School of Education at the University of Iceland, teachers in compulsory schools, and staff from two municipal education offices. It focused on teaching and learning in Icelandic, Mathematics, and Science at the middle and lower secondary levels. Teachers utilized classroom video recordings as a basis for self-reflection and professional dialogue. Through guided analysis, they practiced identifying elements associated with high-quality instruction as defined by the PLATO framework (Grossman et al., 2013) and explored strategies for developing and refining specific aspects of their teaching in cooperation with peers, instructional coaches, and researchers. The overall purpose of the study is to propose recommendations to educational authorities concerning structures and approaches to professional development, based on the insights gained from the SAEG project. The project has two main aims: first, to develop new forms of collaborative approaches for teacher professional learning on instructional quality through the use of video-based reflection; and second, to generate and disseminate knowledge about the characteristics of high-quality teaching.

The SAEG project builds on insights generated through the Nordic Centre of Excellence on Quality in Teaching (QUINT) (e.g. Blikstad Balas & Jenset, 2024; Klette et.al. 2026). In addition, the project draws upon over a decade of accumulated research on the structures and forms of effective teacher professional development (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017) that are content focused and sustained in duration and include among other active learning, collaboration and coaching. Various models have been identified to bridge the knowing-doing gap in education (e.g. Broekkamp and van Hout-Walters, 2007; Ventista & Brown, 2023). Anna Kristín Sigurðardóttir et al (2018) and Burgard, & Boucher, (2025) are among those who suggest some form of knowledge partnership where researchers, practitioners and policy makers meets as equal partners, which was followed in SAEG project.

This paper addresses the following research questions:

• What opportunities and challenges do teachers and researchers identify when participating in an integrated research and professional development project such as SAEG.

The paper concludes with reflections on potential implications for school leaders and educational policymakers in planning and prioritizing teacher professional development.