Globally, K-12 education systems are grappling with how best to integrate research and evidence into policy and practice. Research-practice-partnerships (RPPs) have arisen as a potentially powerful mechanism for school improvement. This study investigates the ways four research-practice-policy-partnerships are addressing impact by (a) reporting on metrics being used to assess brokering and partnerships, and (b) exploring the ways that network leads and policymakers conceptualize partnerships and impact on the frontlines. Our findings suggest that while metrics being used provide a necessary baseline for number and types of partnerships, more robust methods are needed capture the quality of interactions and to strategically inform network development. Network leads conceptualize impact in relation to collaborative processes (shared goals; new and diverse partnerships; improved student achievement; system alignment); systems and structures (joint-work; funding and sustainability; demand from practitioners; equity); continuous learning (capacity-building; reach; adaptability; storytelling). Our discussion provides ideas about network improvement that include sharing cases of failures (alongside exemplary cases) to maximize learning, and advocates for the use of developmental evaluation to explore the impacts of RPPs.

This paper examines how frequently K* training programs have been evaluated, synthesizes information on the methods and outcome indicators used, and identifies potential future approaches for evaluation. We conducted a systematic scoping review of publications evaluating K* training programs, including formal and informal training programs targeted toward knowledge brokers, researchers, policymakers, practitioners, and community members. Using broad inclusion criteria, eight electronic databases and Google Scholar were systematically searched using Boolean queries. After independent screening, scientometric and content analysis was conducted to map the literature and provide in-depth insights related to the methodological characteristics, outcomes assessed, and future evaluation approaches proposed by the authors of the included studies. The Kirkpatrick four-level training evaluation model was used to categorize training outcomes. Of the 824 unique resources identified, 47 were eligible for inclusion in the analysis. The number of published articles increased after 2014, with most conducted in the United States and Canada. Many training evaluations were designed to capture process and outcome variables. We found that surveys and interviews of trainees were the most used data collection techniques. Downstream organizational impacts that occurred because of the training were evaluated less frequently. Authors of the included studies cited limitations such as the use of simple evaluative designs, small cohorts/sample sizes, lack of long-term follow-up, and an absence of curriculum evaluation activities. This study found that many evaluations of K* training programs were weak, even though the number of training programs (and the evaluations thereof) have increased steadily since 2014. We found a limited number of studies on K* training outside of the field of health and few studies that assessed the long-term impacts of training. More evidence from well-designed K* training evaluations are needed and we encourage future evaluators and program staff to carefully consider their evaluation design and outcomes to pursue.

This paper explores how redesigned Education Doctorate (EdD) programs in educational leadership can serve as a lever for strengthening the use of research evidence (URE) in schools and districts. Drawing on the COM-B framework, we conceptualize a theory of action that links EdD program design to leaders’ capabilities, motivations, and behaviors in applying research to educational improvement. We identify key dimensions of leadership preparation that align with well-documented URE practices. Finally, we discuss how these insights can inform doctoral programs as well as in-service professional learning and suggest the need for additional empirical work on these relationships and a deeper understanding of how local contexts shape the effectiveness of leadership preparation in supporting research-informed decision-making.

The role of district research leaders (DRLs) in central offices has emerged as a strategy for improving the creation, flow, and use of research knowledge in decision-making. However, there is limited information about the responsibilities, opportunities, and challenges inherent in these roles. This exploratory qualitative study features document analysis to examine the individual backgrounds, job demands, and organizational contexts of DRLs. The result of this study suggest that multiple pathways to the DRL role exist, but few include formal training in knowledge brokering. Further findings suggest that DRL jobs are complex and entail diverse tasks, but share a focus on research leadership and coordination, identifying and obtaining relevant research information, and facilitating evidence-informed change. Moreover, organizational contexts varied in supportiveness for knowledge brokering work. Overall, there was limited evidence of alignment across individual, job, and organizational characteristics, signaling an opportunity to better define and support those in DRL roles.