The importance of knowledge transfer across research, practice, politics and civil society in education is undisputed. At the same time, a noticeable gap remains between research and non-scientific communities in education (Gräsel 2010, Diederichs & Desoye (eds.) 2023). This is due to the complexity of knowledge transfer, which ranges from a lack of common understanding of what knowledge means and how it can be applied to overcoming boundaries between different knowledge domains, to identifying, implementing and evaluating effective transfer methods (Malin & Brown 2020, McMahon, Legget & Carroll 2022).

To strengthen transfer at a European level, European transfer research has been developed under the banner of evidence-informed policy and the establishment of organizations and institutions dedicated to this issue has been initiated (OECD 2023). Two European transfer actors and their approaches should be highlighted in this context: the British Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) with its Teaching and Learning Toolkit and the Dutch Het Nationaal Regieorgaan Onderwijsonderzoek (NRO) which has adopted EEFs toolkit and runs the Kennisrotonde (knowledge roundabout). Their comprehensive activities and their practice materials as well as their dissemination and anchoring strategies are considered exemplarily and are positively evaluated in research (cf. Locher, Unger, Hartmann, Hochweber, 2023; OECD 2023).

The EEF pursues the goal of decoupling education from parents' financial situation with its transfer activities. Decision-makers are offered systematic summaries of studies (systematic reviews/meta-analyses) that are open and publicly available providing information on impact, evidence and costs of an intervention (Higgins et al. 2022). To implement these findings, regional partnerships are sought with schools that utilize evidence-informed methods in the classroom, and practical materials such as handouts and guidelines are developed. In addition, the EEF has established a global network of partners who have adapted the toolkit to their own countries, localising the systematic reviews.

The Netherlands are one of the European countries that are part of this international network. Het Nationaal Regieorgaan Onderwijsonderzoek (NRO) has adapted EEFs toolkit as part of various initiatives aiming to mitigate the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. Moreover, the NRO has broadened the evidence-informed approach by the Kennisrotonde to include a bi-directional perspective on transfer.  Based on research literature, a pool of experts that includes students’ answers questions that come directly from school practice. In addition, handouts, video clips, web-seminars and other materials are created to answer educational questions (van den Berg & Pins 2023).

Our research aims to investigate the transfer of such transfer structures and mechanisms across countries. To what extend can evidence supporting one country’s educational system and culture be applied to another country? Which knowledge is gained, and which elements get lost in these processes? Which aspects are crucial for a successful “transfer of transfer”? To answer our research questions, we first examine the translation and implementation of EEFs toolkit in the Netherlands. In a second step, we analyse the conditions that would allow for the implementation of the toolkit and the Kennisrotonde in Germany.

Learning from one another has always been the aim of internationalization of education. From a national perspective, international comparisons act as quality assurance measures that can highlight weaknesses in one education system and provide opportunities to learn from others. From a global perspective, international educational research is essential to develop solutions to overarching educational issues with a global scientific community in mind. Our research is situated within this tradition, examining international best practices and exploring the prerequisites for adaptation.

The exploratory study was conducted across three closely interlinked phases that employ different methods. The initial phase involved an in-depth analysis of EEFs toolkit and NROs Kennisrotonde. Employing a qualitative content analysis, their detailed catalogues of services, materials for practice and dissemination strategies for embedding evidence-informed teaching were examined and core components identified. Based on this analysis, semi-structured interviews were conducted with individuals responsible for the programmes. They clarified remaining questions. In the interview with the NRO, the focus was placed on how the toolkit was adopted and received. Consequently, key components of each action and methods were identified. In the second phase, we examined the framework conditions necessary for the implementation of best practice from the Netherlands and the UK in Germany. The perspective we take is one of four stakeholder groups for such services of knowledge transfer. These stakeholders are primarily practitioners. Our exploratory study focuses on schools, i.e. teachers and school leaders. Their thematic requirements, the processing of scientific findings and the appropriate dissemination structures are crucial cornerstones for the adaptation of EEFs toolkit and the Kennisrotonde. The second key stakeholder group consists of teacher training experts in Germany’s federal states, in particular the state pedagogical institutes and quality institutions, as well as transfer structures that exist at state level. These institutions are important for the engagement of schools and teachers in the proposed transfer structures. The third group of stakeholders are educational researchers and individuals working at clearing houses at German universities. Their experiences and initiatives provide a framework to be considered when adapting best practices. As a final group, we focused on experts in educational technologies to explore dissemination systems and technical options for processing research knowledge (Fahrer, Wilmers und Rittberger 2023). Their perspective on the use of AI-based extraction tools for research literature can extend the scope of the two best practices. All stakeholder groups were invited to moderated roundtables, one for each group, where their unique perspectives were discussed and shared. In a third phase, the findings from the content analysis and stakeholder analysis were translated into specific scenarios for the implementation of the best practices. The scenarios were developed through an agile process that includes feedback and evaluation by selected stakeholders from phase two. Finally, a workflow for a particularly promising scenario was developed and theoretically tested using a specific example.

As the achievement of transfer is based on bi-directional exchange of knowledge, our preliminary findings identified four critical elements for the “transfer of transfer”: the education system, the recipients’ needs, the databases for evidence-based knowledge reviews, and the implementation framework. Their interplay is a deciding factor for a successful implementation of a structure in another country. The adoption of EEFs toolkit in the Netherlands is a good example. The relative autonomy of schools, as allowed by school systems, facilitates the adoption of EEFs toolkit. The toolkit is directed at school leaders and aims to meet their need for assistance about financial investments in evidence-based strategies. Thus, the toolkit can support the group of leaders in both countries. However, not all components of the toolkit were applicable in the Netherlands - for example, issues related to school uniforms are not relevant in the Netherlands, so these were excluded. To implement the toolkit in Germany, the target audience needs to be adapted, for example to include policymakers at state level as schools are not as autonomous in Germany. Changing the target group will affect many other factors, resulting in a significantly greater effort required to implement the toolkit in Germany. Our scenario therefore centres on the Kennisrotonde which is aimed at decision-makers and teachers, and it facilitates a direct interaction between research and practice. The main point of contact is a clarification talk between the interviewer from practice and the responding researcher. This conversation demonstrates to the parties that their respective domains work autonomously: Practice questions are not automatically research questions; they require a transformation. This transformation is a co-constructive process and promotes understanding of the other’s perspective on educational issues, which seems a promising approach to closing the gap between research and practice.

van den Berg, E.; Pins, H. (2023): Evidence-Informed beantwoorden van onderwijsvragen evaluatie van de kennisrotunde. Amsterdam: Seo – economisch onderzoek. https://www.kennisrotonde.nl/sites/kennisrotonde/files/media-files/2023-56_evidence-informed_beantwoorden_van_onderwijsvragen_def_1.pdf Diederichs, T., & Desoye, A. K. (Hrsg.). (2023). Transfer in Pädagogik und Erziehungswissenschaft: Zwischen Wissenschaft und Praxis. Beltz Juventa. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:29144 Fahrer, S., Wilmers, A., & Rittberger, M. (2022). Wissenstransfer in der Bildungsinformation: Forschungssynthesen und Bildungsportale als Transferwege. Bildungsforschung. https://bildungsforschung.org/ojs/index.php/bildungsforschung/article/view/891/884 Gräsel, C. (2010). Stichwort: Transfer und Transferforschung im Bildungsbereich. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 13(1), 7–20. Higgins, S., Katsipataki, M., Villanueva Aguilera, A. B., Dobson, E., Gascoine, L., Rajab, T., Kalambouka, A., Reardon, J., Stafford, J., & Uwimpuhwe, G. (2022). The Teaching and Learning Toolkit: Communicating research evidence to inform decision-making for policy and practice education. Review of Education, 10, e3327. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3327. Locher, F. M., Unger, V., Hartmann, U., Hochweber, J.: Nutzung von Forschungswissen durch Lehrpersonen. Eine datengestützte Betrachtung von Nutzungsprofilen. In: Beiträge zur Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung 41 (2023) 2, S. 299-315. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:27991 MacMahon, S., Leggett, J., & Carroll, A. (2022). Partnering to learn: A collaborative approach to research translation for educators and researchers. Mind, Brain, and Education, 16*(2), 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12317 Malin, J. R., Brown, C., & Șt. Trubceac, A. (2020). Educational brokerage and knowledge mobilization in the United States: Who, what, why, how? In J. R. Malin & C. Brown (Eds.), The role of knowledge brokers in education: Connecting the dots between research and practice (pp. 13–26). Routledge. OECD (2023), Who Really Cares about Using Education Research in Policy and Practice? Developing a Culture of Research Engagement, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.doi.org/10.1787/bc641427-en