In changing educational environments, curriculum development is not always evidence-informed. Inquiry-based working could contribute positively when secondary schools deal with redesigning the curriculum. However, inquiry-based working is not yet commonly embedded in school cultures (Geijsel et al., 2020). This study aims to promote a sustainable research engaged school culture in nine secondary schools in support of reaching their school development goals. A research culture in schools (or a Research Engaged School; RES; Godfrey, 2016) requires leadership that stimulates colleagues to learn how to use knowledge, for instance, via effective professional learning communities (PLC’s). In such PLC’s, teachers collectively learn with colleagues or experts from inside or outside the schools. Moreover, a research culture in schools requires conditions for teachers to learn through inquiry-based working. Examples of such conditions are time to meet and collectively learn, and access to resources such as literature or podcasts. Research Engaged Schools are characterised by the way research informs curriculum decisions, policies, and practices.

The RES model identifies the following four areas (Godfrey, 2016). Inquiry-based working refers to developing knowledge by combining practical experiences with knowledge from scientific and/or teacher research (Baan, 2020). Multilevel distributed leadership concerns leadership that is provided by various colleagues in the school; formal and informal leaders (e.g., school leaders and teacher leaders) work together based on their position or role, and on affinity and expertise (Al-Fadala et al., 2022). The school as a learning organisation refers to an organisation in which teachers, teacher leaders, and formal leaders together learn how to work inquiry-based (Kools et al., 2020). A systemic perspective concerns the coherence between what happens in the classroom, school, and national context (Cohen et al., 2018).

In order to stimulate the research cultures of secondary schools, this study inventories the research culture level of nine schools. Informed by this inventory, teachers, teacher leaders, formal leaders, and researchers together design interventions aimed at promoting the areas of the RES model.

This poster focuses on the research question “How do schools perceive the Research Engaged School culture in their school?”. This questions concerns the inventory stage of the larger project.

The total population of employees in the nine secondary schools ranged between n = 40-176. All teachers and leaders in these schools were asked to participate in this study. Moreover, from the nine schools, three PLC’s were formed. Within each PLC, a teacher, a teacher leader, and a formal leader from three schools participated (nine persons per PLC). Each PLC was guided by a researcher. Of the nine secondary schools, two smaller schools offered pre-vocational education, and seven larger schools offered pre-vocational, senior general, and pre-university education. We collected quantitative and qualitative data. First, respondents filled-out a questionnaire that measured the four RES areas (4 scales, 10 subscales, 48 items; N=430; response rate 43%), that was constructed together with the PLC members. Example items are: inquiry-based working; “To improve teaching at my school, I gain knowledge from sources such as books, magazines, and podcasts”, multilevel distributed leadership; “to improve inquiry-based working at my school, teacher leaders ask to consult relevant sources in preparation for meetings”, learning organisation; “At my school, colleagues and leaders jointly reflect on how to improve inquiry-based working”, and systemic perspective; “At my school, the school vision focuses on inquiry-based working”. All statements were rated on a five-point Likert scale (disagree-agree). Scales were internally consistent with Cronbach’s α ranging between α=.77 for inquiry-based working and α=.94 for multilevel distributed leadership. Second, we interviewed a subsample of respondents during a focus group interview per school (n=5-10; N=73). Preceding the focus group interviews, respondents completed a Scan Research Culture (newly developed, yet inspired upon Ros & Keuvelaar-van den Bergh, 2017): a rubric with the four RES areas and the description of five research culture phases. We used an overview (heatmap) of the completed Scans within the group as the starting point of each interview. We interviewed respondents about the present (e.g., “If you look at this overview, what do you see?”), past (e.g., “Can you recall specific events that happened in the past in your school, which possibly led to the current status of the research culture?”), and future (e.g., “Is there a specific area that you would like to improve?”). The PLC members organised the data collection. A researcher, with help of a PLC member, conducted the interviews. Data were collected between November 2023 and January 2024. Data were discussed and interpreted within the PLC: do PLC members recognise or understand the data yielded by the questionnaire and interviews?

Preliminary results. Preliminary questionnaire analyses indicated relatively low to neutral scores (“I mostly disagree” to “sometimes, sometimes not”) on multilevel distributed leadership (M=2.42, SD=0.72), systemic perspective (M=2.69, SD=.83), inquiry-based working (M=2.93, SD=0.64), and learning organisation (M=3.05, SD=0.57). The item and scale scores showed variance within and between schools. The response per school varied and many respondents stopped completing the questionnaire prematurely. Communication in the PLC’s and personal communication pointed towards experienced difficulty with the terminology used. Moreover, a possible connection seemed to exist between the relevance explained by the PLC members regarding school development and a research culture, and the response rate. A positive mindset towards inquiry-based working in the school, also, seemed connected to the response rate. Preliminary focus group interview analyses indicated that it is not common practice for (teacher) leaders to stimulate inquiry-based working. Also, if inquiry-based working does happen, there is little exchange between colleagues. Interviewees indicated that they do not exactly know in what work their colleagues are involved: “We work in islands”. Moreover, if inquiry-based working does happen, it happens more occasionally instead of systematically, according to the focus groups. Preliminary conclusions. The nine secondary schools face challenges in their development towards a research culture. To provide stimulation, it is important to develop interventions that continuously link curriculum and school development with inquiry-based working (Earl & Timperley, 2015; van den Akker et al., 2012). Overall, the questionnaire response expressed the perceived relevance of inquiry-based working in schools (cf. Godfrey, 2016). The questionnaire response was higher when PLC members explained the relevance for their school’s development to the school team respondents and created time to jointly complete the questionnaire. By jointly completing the questionnaire and during the interviews, a start was made to share language and develop understanding about inquiry-based working among teachers and leaders.

Al-Fadala, A., Morel, R., & Spillane, J. (2022). Multilevel distributed leadership. In D. Netolicky (Ed.), Future alternatives for educational leadership (pp. 79-92). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003131496 Baan. (2020). The contribution of academic teachers to inquiry-based working in primary schools [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Amsterdam]. Cohen, D. K., Spillane, J. P., & Peurach, D. J. (2018). The dilemmas of educational reform. Educational Researcher, 47(3), 204-212. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x17743488 Earl, L., & Timperley, H. (2015). Evaluative thinking for successful educational innovation. OECD Working Papers, No 122. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5jrxtk1jtdwf-en Geijsel, F., Schenke, W., van Driel, J., & Volman, M. (2020). Embedding inquiry‐based practices in schools: The strategic role of school leaders. European Journal of Education, 55(2), 233-247. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12395 Godfrey, D. (2016). Leadership of schools as research-led organisations in the English educational environment: Cultivating a research-engaged school culture. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(2), 301-321. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213508294 Kools, M., Stoll, L., George, B., Steijn, B., Bekkers, V., & Gouëdard, P. (2020). The school as a learning organisation: The concept and its measurement. European Journal of Education, 55(1), 24-42. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12383 Ros, A., & Keuvelaar-van den Bergh, L. (2017). Scan onderzoekscultuur in de school en interventiekaarten [Scan research culture in the school and interventioncards]. Steunpunt Opleidingsscholen PO-Raad en VO-Raad. https://www.platformsamenopleiden.nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/180226-ScanOnderzoekscultuur_POVO_Webversie_LR-1.pdf van den Akker, J., Kuiper, W., & Nieveen, N. (2012). Bruggen slaan tussen beleid, praktijk en wetenschap in curriculumontwikkeling en -onderzoek [Building bridges between policy, practice, and science in curriculumdevelopment and -research]. Pedagogische Studiën, 89(6), 399-410.