In recent decades, teacher trainings (TT) were studied with regard to their effectiveness and their contributions to school and classroom development. Large meta-analyses examined various characteristics of TT to identify best practices (cf. Harris & Sass, 2011). TT differ in their objectives and therefore can affect different areas. Lipowsky (2020) arranged these areas of influence hierarchically into a layered model: teachers’ reaction, teachers’ learning, teachers’ practice, student outcome and school development. However, the effectiveness of TT is not only influenced by the event itself, but takes place in a complex system which can be related to the utilization of learning opportunities model (Brühwiler et al., 2017). To what extend the different areas influence each other and interact remains a major research desideratum.

Teachers’ attitudes and beliefs move into focus when it comes to implementations in school. For both usage of digital media and technology the importance of teachers attitude and beliefs could be empirically proven (cf. Li et al., 2019). In both cases the attitudes relate directly to the innovation. However, some studies take a broader look at attitudes in the context of teachers’ technology and curriculum implementation, finding that both subject and surroundings shape teachers’ attitudes (cf. Mertala, 2019). When it comes to specific subject TT it remains unclear how teachers’ beliefs affect the implementation. We developed an evaluated TT which enables teachers to carry out standard methods of molecular biology and implement these in school, e.g. polymerase chain reaction (Nerdel & Schöppner, 2021). The methods are embedded in different models of curricular valid contexts to increase acceptance by teachers (Schöppner et al., 2022). In general the trainings’ realization was oriented at known implementation barriers and their reduction (cf. Gräsel, 2010). Subsequently, teachers can borrow the equipment free of charge. Some teachers implemented the training successfully into their classroom or even their school curriculum (Großbruchhaus et al., submitted). In theory the implementation barriers remain the same for all participating teachers. However, some implement the training right away and others don’t. This study aims at further insights into teachers’ reasoning.

Therefore, we interviewed 39 teachers of whom 20 implemented the training. We coded each interview with a category system based on existing research insights (cf. Gräsel, 2010). The emerging system contained seven main categories with several sub-categories. Subsequently, we analyzed each category inductively to reveal the subtleties of the arguments used.

We found huge differences in attitudes between the teacher groups who implemented and who didn’t. Identified differences include either the whole perception of or the given importance to a feature, which leads to distinguish argumentative patterns while using the same arguments. In this paper we focus on the two categories system features and values and beliefs.

When it comes to system features three main arguments are used: national curriculum, time and taught classes. However, the intercorrelations and perception of those vary. For instance, the division of the curriculum into subthemes opens flexibility to some teachers’ while others perceive the order as fixed arguing that the subtheme into which the training fits lays in an inappropriate time frame of the year for implementation. This perception differences influences other areas, e.g. corporation as teachers view the flexibility every teacher has as burden to never find the same time frame teaching that curriculum subtheme. All together the implementation barriers with their different weighting form a complex network of argumentative structure. This demonstrates the huge influence of attitudes on implementation of teaching innovation maybe even independent from the training itself. Future studies should examine to what extend their implementation procedure is influenced or shaped by teachers’ beliefs and attitudes beyond the trainings’ topic.

At the time of the survey, 289 teachers from 98 secondary schools participated in the teacher training. Teachers from 38 schools implemented the at least one context, 20 implemented more. In order to achieve the broadest possible coverage, we followed theoretical sampling to include all (1) secondary school types, (2) participation modes, (3) locations of training, (4) implementation, (5) implementation modes. We interviewed 39 teachers, 20 implemented the content at their school. The duration of the interviews took M=20 min (SD=10). Transcription was done in the program f4 following simple rules (Dresing & Pehl, 2020). After summarizing all interviews, we used the program MaxQDA 20 to code each interview with a category system based on existing research insights (cf. Gräsel & Parchmann, 2004). The emerging system contained seven main categories with several sub-categories given in parenthesis: teacher training (5), personal characteristics (5), school organization (6), system features, innovation (4), cooperation (5), dissimilation (3). We coded a total of 2096 segments following simple coding rule, e.g. whole sentences only (Mayring, 2020). The value for Cohen's Kappa is 0,88, which was determined according to Brennan & Prediger (1981) based on an 80% overlap of the codes and obtained through double coding of approximately 30% of the transcripts. Subsequently, we conducted an overlap analysis both within and between categories. We analyzed the frequencies to examine differences in argumentation within the two groups of interest, teacher who implemented and those who did not. Those categories that showed differences build the base for our inductive analysis of argumentation and therefore coded again. Within the inductive process, we followed the same coding rule as previously. The tool smart coding of the program MaxQDA 20 showed all segments in the category of interest. We looked at each segment individually and defined an overarching abstraction level of the content. All indictive categories were validated communicatively without double coding the material once again. In this paper we present the categories with the biggest differences between teacher groups: system features and the personal features sub-category values and beliefs.

We found huge differences in attitudes between the teacher groups who implemented and who didn’t. Those include either the whole perception of or the given importance to a feature, which leads to distinguish argumentative patterns while using the same arguments. Within system features three main arguments are used: national curriculum, time and taught classes. The alignment of teacher training (TT) to the curriculum is a well-known implementation barrier (cf. Gräsel, 2010). All teachers agree on the curriculum being stacked and leaving barely room for innovative teaching practice. However, national curriculum is divided in subthemes that can be alternated in order by teachers (ISB, 2015). Not all teachers seem to acknowledge that feature, perceiving the order as fixed which hinders their implementation due to an inappropriate time frame within the school year. But even if teachers acknowledge it, they can perceive this flexibility as barrier for corporation as the faculty had to agree on an order. In contrast to that, some teachers substantiate their view of easy implementation by curriculums flexibility. This example impressively demonstrated how close different implementation barriers are intertwined and depended on teachers’ perception of them, e.g. national curriculum and cooperation. All together they form a complex network which shed new light on implementation research. Leading to the question to what extend TT can influence this network or operate within it to enhance implementation. As few studies already prove attitudes’ influence on implementation in some topics, further studies should verify those in different context. Additionally, teachers’ argumentative structure should be examined when it comes to implementing teaching innovations. Both could lead to gain an operating framework for future TT development.

Brennan, R. L., & Prediger, D. J. (1981). Coefficient kappa: Some uses, misuses, and alternatives. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41(3), 687–699. Brühwiler, C., Helmke, A., & Schrader, F.‑W. (2017). Determinanten der Schulleistung. In M. K. Schweer (Ed.), Lehrer-Schüler-Interaktion (pp. 291–314). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-15083-9_13 Dresing, T., & Pehl, T. (2020). Transkription. In G. Mey & K. Mruck (Eds.), Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie: Band 2: Designs und Verfahren (2nd ed., pp. 835–854). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-26887-9_56 Gräsel, C. (2010). Stichwort: Transfer und Transferforschung im Bildungsbereich. Zeitschrift Für Erziehungswissenschaft, 13(1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-010-0109-8 Gräsel, C., & Parchmann, I. (2004). Implementationsforschung-oder: der steinige Weg, Unterricht zu verändern. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 32(3), 196–214. Großbruchhaus, S., Schöppner, P., & Nerdel, C. (submitted). Implementation processes: Sustainable Integration of Biotechnology Exeriments into Schools. Current Research in Biology Education. Harris, D. N., & Sass, T. R. (2011). Teacher training, teacher quality and student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7-8), 798–812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.11.009 ISB (Ed.). (2015). LehrplanPLUS: Staatsinstitut für Schulqualität und Bildungsforschung [Special issue], 2015. München. https://www.lehrplanplus.bayern.de/schulart/gymnasium/inhalt/fachlehrplaene?w_schulart=gymnasium&wt_1=schulart Li, Y., Garza, V., Keicher, A., & Popov, V. (2019). Predicting High School Teacher Use of Technology: Pedagogical Beliefs, Technological Beliefs and Attitudes, and Teacher Training. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 24(3), 501–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9355-2 Lipowsky, F., & Rzejak, D. (2020). Was macht Fortbildung für Lehkräfte erfolgreich? - Ein Update. In B. Groot-Wilken & R. Koerber (Eds.), Beiträge zur Schulentwicklung. Nachhaltige Professionalisierung für Lehrerinnen und Lehrer: Ideen, Entwicklungen, Konzepte (pp. 15–56). wbv. Mayring, P. (2020). Qualitative inhaltsanalyse. In G. Mey & K. Mruck (Eds.), Handbuch qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie (pp. 495–511). Springer. Mertala, P. (2019). Teachers’ beliefs about technology integration in early childhood education: A meta-ethnographical synthesis of qualitative research. Computers in Human Behavior, 101, 334–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.003 Nerdel, C., & Schöppner, P. (2021). Evaluation einer Lehrerfortbildung zum praktischen Einsatz von biotechnologischen Methoden im Unterricht. In S. Kapelari, A. Möller, & P. Schmiemann (Eds.), Lehr- und Lernforschung in der Biologiedidaktik: Band 9. "Naturwissenschaftliche Kompetenzen in der Gesellschaft von morgen": Internationale Jahrestagung der Fachsektion Didaktik der Biologie im VBIO und der Gesellschaft für Didaktik der Chemie und Physik, Wien 2019 (pp. 292–305). StudienVerlag. Schöppner, P., Großbruchhaus, S., & Nerdel, C. (2022). Biotechnologie Praxisorientiert Unterrichten: Aktuelle Kontexte für Schule und Lehrerfortbildung. Springer.