Collaborative formats between schools and university, also integrating other partners “with varied backgrounds, roles and functions” (Lillejord & Børte, 2016, p. 556), are regarded as having the potential to enable further development of teacher education by improving the link between theory and practice (Author(s) et al., 2022; Lillejord & Børte, 2016; Villiger, 2015). Associated benefits of those collaborative formats range from didactic innovations (Barth & Bürgener, 2022; Gräsel, 2011) to professional development of (preservice) teachers (Korthagen, 2016; Postholm, 2016) to collective capacity building and educational change (Farrell et al., 2022; Gorodetsky & Barak, 2008).

Research-Practice Partnerships (RPPs) are one of those collaborative formats, originated in the USA, which aimed at educational improvement through engagement with research. They are intentionally organized to connect diverse forms of expertise and shift power relations in research endeavor to ensure that all partners have voice in the joint work (Farrell et al., 2021). However, in case of RPPs, the underlying processes of this collaboration format and outcomes beyond the particular innovation produced remain unexplored (Coburn & Penuel, 2016). Evaluation studies especially in Europe are scarce (Cooper et al., 2021).

Therefore, in the project of the Quality Initiative Teacher Training, "ZZL-Netzwerk" (Future Center for Teacher Education - Network) of Leuphana University Lüneburg, nine cross-institutional so called Development Teams (DTs) have been established since 2016, comprising representatives from university, schools, extracurricular partner organizations and teacher students. The design of these DTs combines all principles of RPPs (Farrell et al., 2022). The teams are to further develop university teaching and improve school teaching practice in co-constructive cooperation, for example (e.g.) by designing learning modules or developing teaching materials. In this way, they are to contribute to a successful interlinking of theory and practice in teacher training (Author(s) et al., 2022).

Findings of a previous study of DT members revealed, among others, collaboration ‘on equal footing’ among actor groups and professional development for participants in the competence areas teaching, assessing, and innovation (Author(s), under review). The present study, which is based on the same survey conducted in May and June 2021 as the one just described (contacted n=105; response rate 74%: n=78), aims to provide further insights into participants´ view of this collaboration and additional learning outcomes, the latter particularly in light of the openness of the RPP concept. Therefore, qualitative research questions (open response format) will be analyzed to address the following research questions:

1) Assessment of this RPP:

1a) What are the challenges, disappointments and success factors of collaboration as well as the greatest personal benefits that participants perceive?

1b) Do differences exist between the respective actor groups with regard to challenges, disappointments and success factors for collaboration as well as concerning the greatest personal benefits?

1c) What effects occur for the work place of the participants due to their participation in this RPP?

2) Informal learnings from participation in RPPs:

Based on this data, do participants realize informal learnings during participation in RPPs?

The data has been analyzed based on structuring qualitative content analysis (Kuckartz & Rädiker, 2022). Results are expected in spring 2023. The findings will contribute to close the mentioned research gaps and shall provide practical implications to improve future collaborations in RPPs and therefore the link between theory and practice. For theory, results are e.g. expected to further strengthen the importance of RPPs for professional and personal development and also to give insights into the effects for the related organizations. For practice, especially results on research questions 1a) and 1b) could e.g. further improve the collaboration being 'on equal footing' as well as the communication channels and structures depending on the actor group.

A first survey of DT members on epistemic, social and organizational integration in 2017 (n=62) was followed by a second online questionnaire in May and June 2021 with n=105 participants (full survey) of the following actor groups: teachers, preservice teachers, principals, teacher educators, teacher students, representatives from extracurricular partner organizations, and researchers from university (professors and scientific staff). This second questionnaire integrated the following questions (in German) with an open response format: 1) Tell us the three most important aspects for collaboration that have been particularly successful in your Development Team. 2) Tell us the three most important aspects that are particularly challenging for collaboration in your Development Team. 3) If you now think of your organization where you work full-time: From your point of view, what effects do you see for this organization as a result of your participation in the Development Team? 4) What is the greatest benefit for you personally that you gain from being part of the Development Team? 5) Are there any disappointments you have experienced while working in the Development Team? For question 3) to 5), participants were also to name a maximal of three aspects each. Additionally, two questions with open response format addressed informal learning processes in this RPP. One question was designed in relation to perceived competence enhancements in teaching, assessing, and innovation (KMK, 2019; Author(s), under review), while the other question did not focus on specified learnings: 6) Concerning self-reported competence enhancement in teaching, assessing, innovation: a) If you think for a moment, is/was one (or are/were several) of these learning outcomes just mentioned rather surprising to you? If so, enter those learning outcomes here. b) Is there an additional learning outcome that you are surprised about and did not expect when you became part of the Development Team? The response rate for the whole survey was 74% (n=78), composed as followed: 35.9% teacher students (n=28), 41% school representatives (n=32) including teachers, principals, teacher educators and preservice teachers, 21.8% researchers (n=17) including professors and scientific staff, and 1.3% representatives of extracurricular partner organizations (n=1). The data has been analyzed based on structuring qualitative content analysis (Kuckartz & Rädiker, 2022) using MAXQDA 2020.

Results contribute closing the mentioned research gaps and shall provide further practical implications to improve future collaborations in RPPs and therefore the link between theory and practice. Theoretical implications: Results on the effects on the related organizations (e.g., schools, study seminars, or the university) expand the analytical framework to effects beyond the direct participants. Therefore, they especially address research gaps that criticize the lack of studies on RPPs beyond the particular innovation produced. Findings on informal learning processes could provide insight into potential unintended learning effects and further promote the use of more open formats such as RPPs as a learning opportunity. Also, findings on participants' greatest personal benefits, combined with the results on reported competence enhancements in teaching, assessing, and innovation (Author(s), under review) would strengthen the importance of RPPs for professional and personal development of the participants. Practical implications: Results on disappointments, major challenges and successes in collaboration could be an impulse for improvements in cooperation 'on equal footing'. They could also impact the composition of the actor groups and, for example, communication channels and structures. Findings on the greatest personal benefits of the participants could reveal actor group-specific differences, which in turn could be useful for the acquisition of new members and for participants' satisfaction.

Author(s) (Under Review) Author(s) et al. (2022) Barth, M., & Bürgener, L. (2022). Der Erwerb professioneller Handlungskompetenz von Sachunterrichtsstudierenden im Kontext von Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung - Kompetenzerwerb durch transdisziplinäre Projektarbeit [The Acquisition of Professional Competence of Students in Social Studies in the Context of Education for Sustainable Development - Acquiring Competence through Transdisciplinary Project Work]. In Author(s) et al. (Ed.). Coburn, C. E., & Penuel, W. R. (2016). Research–Practice Partnerships in Education: Outcomes, Dynamics, and Open Questions. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16631750 Cooper, A., MacGregor, S., & Shewchuk, S. (2021). A research model to study research-practice partnerships in education. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 6(1), 44–63. Farrell, C. C., Penuel, W. R., Allen, A., Anderson, E. R., Bohannon, A. X., Coburn, C. E., & Brown, S. L. (2022). Learning at the Boundaries of Research and Practice: A Framework for Understanding Research–Practice Partnerships. Educational Researcher, 51(3), 197–208. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211069073 Farrell, C. C., Penuel, W. R., Coburn, C. E., Daniel, J., & Steup, L. (2021). Research Practice Partnerships in Education: The State of the Field. William T. Grant Foundation. Gorodetsky, M., & Barak, J. (2008). The educational-cultural edge: A participative learning environment for co-emergence of personal and institutional growth.: Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(24), 1907–1918. Gräsel, C. (2011). Die Kooperation von Forschung und Lehrer/innen bei der Realisierung didaktischer Innovationen. [The Cooperation between Researchers and Teachers in the Realisation of Didactical Innovations]. In W. Einsiedler (Ed.), Unterrichtsentwicklung und didaktische Entwicklungsforschung, (pp. 88–101). Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt. KMK. (2019). Standards für die Lehrerbildung: Bildungswissenschaften: Beschluss der Kultusministerkonferenz vom 16.12.2014 [Standards for Teacher Education]. http://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/2004/2004_12_16-Standards-Lehrerbildung.pdf Korthagen, F. (2016). Inconvenient truths about teacher learning: Towards professional development 3.0. Teachers and Teaching, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2016.1211523 Kuckartz, U., & Rädiker, S. (2022). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse - Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung [Qualitative content analysis - methods, practice, computer support] (5th ed.). Beltz Juventa. Lillejord, S. & Børte, K. (2016). Partnership in teacher education – a research mapping. European Journal of Teacher Education 39 (5): 550–63. https://doi:10.1080/02619768.2016.1252911. Postholm, M. B. (2016). Collaboration between teacher educators and schools to enhance development. European Journal of Teacher Education 39 (4): 452–70. https://doi:10.1080/02619768.2016.1225717. Villiger, C. (2015). Teacher education between theory and practice: discussions on an unresolved issue. In C. Villiger, U. Trautwein (Eds.), Between theory and practice. Demands and possibilities in teacher education; Festschrift for the 65th birthday of Alois Niggli (pp. 9-18). Münster: Waxmann.