The higher education didactic format of research-based teaching and learning (RBL) can be characterized as a central component within academic-university teacher education in Europe (BERA, 2014) and it is a central challenge for university teaching to teach diverse students from diverse subject and research cultures in this area.

RBL in teacher education exhibits different theoretical traditions, conceptualizations, and patterns of implementation. Thus, RBL can be considered as (1.) a general higher education didactic teaching-learning format (Mieg et al., 2022) or as (2.) practice research with the aim of methodologically controlled reflection and initiating a change in one’sown school pedagogical practice (Zeichner & Noffke, 2001). In addition, (3.) within the framework of professionalization theories, the establishment of a science and research orientation as well as a critical-reflexive basic attitude (researching habitus) is discussed (Spies & Knapp 2020). Furthermore, (4.) RBL formats are implemented as research-oriented practice phases or as "Research-Informed Clinical Practice" (Burn & Mutton, 2013). Here they act as a preparation for the everyday professional life in schools, ensuring a detached analysis of pedagogical actions from a professionalization perspective.

From a macro perspective, however, the question of the best possible training for teachers* is also determined by conflicting social discourses of power. Among other things, this can be seen in the educational policy or administrative conflict over whether teacher* education should be conceived in a compellingly academic-scientific way (undergraduate university studies) or as vocational training, with a practical-technical view of teaching and learning (Baan et al., 2019). BERA (2014) and Tatto (2013) argue for university-based teacher* education that is grounded in scholarship and research. They point out findings that identify Singapore and Finland as particularly successful and high-performing education systems - measured by students' educational achievement and the low link between social background and educational success. BERA and Tatto see this as due to the extensive research-based education and a high output of highly qualified academically educated teachers*. 

A positive correlation between research relevance and performance of teacher education is found if: the first phase of teacher education is academic-university oriented and based on scientific knowledge and subject-specific, -didactic and pedagogical professional knowledge is taught in a research-oriented and research-based manner in the teacher training program, thus enabling students to receive and critically reflect on (the latest) research findings and studies (Healey & Jenkins, 2009).

In essence, it is about establishing subject-based autonomy of action and a critical-reflective attitude (research habitus), based on scientifically mediated professional knowledge (subject-specific, subject-didactic and pedagogical). Enabling student teachers - equipped with 'research literacy' (BERA, 2014) - to receive, critically classify, and independently conduct research and thus to use it as the basis of their pedagogical practice in school and teaching as well as of school development issues.

This paper discusses on the one hand to what extent these supposedly overly idealistic assumptions are implemented in the concrete practice of university teaching and on the other hand which learning resistances and limitations can be identified in teaching-learning processes. These limitations include ambivalences regarding the claim of professionalization through research reference, professional overload, role diffusion in practice phases, lack of time resources, low research interest, etc. (Brew & Saunders, 2020; Gerheim, 2019).

The first results of an evaluation study are presented, showing how student teachers at the Carl von Ossietzky University/Germany have implemented and evaluated the program of research-based teaching and learning in the context of a three-semester research-based course.

Object of evaluation The evaluation study presented here examines six courses structured in the format of research-based teaching and learning. Each course spans three semesters, pursues a superordinate educational science or (school) pedagogical topic and expects students to carry out an independent, school practice-related, research or evaluation project within the framework of a school practice phase. The maximum number of participants* is 15 students per course. Evaluation design The impact of research-based learning in the course is examined and evaluated on the three central levels of knowledge acquisition (research and evaluation methods), competence development (key competencies) and critical-reflexive attitude (professionalization level). On the level of acceptance research, the higher education didactic format of research-based learning in teacher education is examined in the context of the current research situation of student teachers in RBL processes in the context of practice projects (cf. Nikolev et al., 2020). Research Instruments At the core of the evaluation's data collection, qualitative group discussions (Mäder, 2013) were conducted at the beginning and end of the three-semester seminar cycle. By means of the group discussion, collective patterns of meaning and relevance structures in particular are to be ascertained and made analyzable. Specifically, the following aspects, each with a different weighting and orientation, were addressed at the respective measurement points (pre- and post-surveys): Expectations of the seminar, assessment and evaluation of the concrete teaching/learning processes in the format of research-based learning (motivation to learn, willingness to exert effort, learning gains, work processes, group processes, etc.), assessment of the method of research-based learning, etc.), assessment of the method of research-based learning and comparison to other seminar formats, relevance of RBL formats in teacher training (research distance, low methodological knowledge, serious character, practice primacy), ideal teaching/learning conditions for research-based learning, didactic assessment of the seminar, especially considering the didactic concept as well as discussion of the establishment of a critical-reflective attitude as a professionalization feature and the transfer potential (habitualization) into school practice. Measurement timing and sample Group discussions were conducted in all six courses offered at the beginning of the first semester (Oct. 2021) and at the end of the third semester (Jan-March 2023). Participation in the survey was voluntary and 40 students participated out of a total of 73 participants*. Evaluation procedure After transcribing the audio recordings, the data obtained through the group discussions will be evaluated and discussed in a deductive and inductive process of category formation using a reconstructive content analysis procedure (Kuckartz 2018).

Initial results of the data analysis show that four central categories became thematic in the group discussions: (1) uncertainty and overwhelm, (2) research and professionalization ambivalence, (3) research-tutored affinity as a professionalization characteristic, and (4) practice dominance. These findings challenge idealistic conceptualizations of RBL processes in higher education (Gerheim, 2018). The category of uncertainty and overwhelm is formulated in relation to independent planning and completion of a self-selected research project. In it, students refer to a lack of methodological skills and research practice and fear an exorbitant amount of time and energy they will have to spend on implementing their research projects. In addition, it is evident that the students offer resistance and ambivalence to the professionalization claim of establishing a critical-reflective attitude through research-based learning. Teacher professionalism is primarily conceptualized in relation to the implementation of teaching and the transmission of knowledge. Nevertheless, patterns emerge that can be classified as research-tutored affinity using the Healy-Jenkins matrix (ibid.). In it, research-based learning is understood by students as a necessary and productive resource for receiving and analyzing study and research findings with reference to school practice. The category of practice dominance, circumscribes the clear preference of teaching practice over research practice. In this category, research is perceived as a non-purposeful distraction of teaching practice from finding roles within the organizational structures at the individual practicum schools. In the first two ex-post group discussions (out of six in total), it is shown that a seminar conception that focuses on clarity, intensive supervision as well as transparent limitation of freedom in the research design (concerning the research question, research instrument & evaluation method) is able to productively deal with these ambivalences and resistances.

Baan, J., Gaikhorst, L., van 't Noordende, J., & Volman, M. (2019). The involvement in inquiry-based working of teachers of research-intensive versus practically oriented teacher education programmes. Teaching and Teacher Education 84(8), pp. 74-82. BERA (British Educational Research Association) (2014). The Role of Research in Teacher Education: Reviewing the Evidence. Interim Report of the BERA-RSA Inquiry. London: BERA-RSA. Brew, A., & Saunders, C. (2020). Making sense of research-based learning in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education. An International Journal of Research and Studies (87), pp 1-11. Burn, K., & Mutton, T. (2013). Review of 'research-informed clinical practice' in initial teacher education. In Research and Teacher Education: The BERA-RSA Inquiry, pp 22-25. London: BERA-RSA. Geheim, U. (2019). Forschendes Lehren und Lernen in der Lehrer_innenbildung: Ambivalenzmuster und Ablaufstörungen aus der Perspektive von Studierenden. In M. Schiefner-Rohs, G. Favella, & A.-C. Hermann, A.-C. (Eds.), Forschungsnahes Lernen Lehren und Lernen in der Lehrer*innenbildung. Forschungsmethodische Zugänge und Modelle zur Umsetzung (pp 211-228). Berlin: Peter Lang Verlag. Gerheim, U. (2018): Ideal und Ambivalenz – Herausforderungen für Lehrende im Prozess des Forschenden Lehrens und Lernens. In J, Lehmann, & H., Mieg, (Eds.). Forschendes Lernen. Ein Praxisbuch (pp. 412-428) Potsdam. FHP-Verlag. Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2009). Developing undergraduate research and inquiry. Heslington: The Higher Education Academy. Kuckartz, U. (2018). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung (Grundlagentexte Methoden). Weinheim: Beltz Verlagsgruppe. Mäder, S. (2013). Die Gruppendiskussion als Evaluationsmethode – Entwicklungsgeschichte, Potenziale und Formen. Zeitschrift für Evaluation, 12 (1). Mieg, H., Ambos, E., Brew, A., Galli, D., & Lehmann, J. (2022). The Cambridge handbook of undergraduate research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nikolov, F., Saunders, C., & Schaumburg, H. (2020). Pre-Service Teachers on their Way to Becoming Reflective Practitioners: The Relevance of Freedom of Choice in Research-Based Learning. Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research (SPUR), 3(4), pp. 46-54. Spies, A., & Knapp, K. (2020). Forschendes Lernen als hochschuldidaktische Strategie der Professionalisierung in der ersten Phase der Lehrer*innenbildung. Retrospektive Deutungen zur Nachhaltigkeit einer Lernerfahrung. In C. Wulf, S. Haberstroh, & M. Petersen (Eds.), Forschendes Lernen – Theorie, Empirie, Praxis (pp. 134-144). Wiesbaden: VS. Tatto, M. T. (2015). International overview: the contribution of research to highperforming systems. In Research and Teacher Education: The BERA-RSA Inquiry, pp. 17-19. London: BERA-RSA. Zeichner, K. & Noffke, S. (2001). Practitioner Research. In V. Richardson (Eds.) Handbook of Research on Teaching. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.