How does AERO set its research agenda?
Each year, the Australian Education Research Organisation (AERO) publishes a Research Agenda that outlines our priority research topics. We listen to systems, sectors and stakeholders and develop a potential program of work that responds to national and jurisdictional priorities. This is then considered by senior officials and agreed by Ministers. Then we determine the specific research questions we’ll investigate within each topic.
What kind of research does AERO do?
There’s no single type of research we rely on – it all depends on the topics and questions we’re investigating.
Research often starts with a literature review to synthesise what’s already known about a question, understand how strong the evidence is and identify gaps in existing knowledge. When the evidence-base about a topic is still emerging, descriptive and exploratory research can help us build foundational understanding about what’s happening, what it looks like in Australia and what we need to know more about.
When the research question is about the effectiveness of a practice or policy, we might use an experimental or quasi-experimental approach. These approaches often combine multiple sources of data such as student assessments, surveys and interviews with teachers to learn what’s effective, how it works, for whom and in what contexts.
We also do substantial research in partnership with early childhood education and care (ECEC) and school educators to design and pilot practical resources, refine models and understand what’s feasible in the real world of classrooms and ECEC settings.
An important and ongoing area of research for us is understanding the drivers and factors that shape children’s development and learning, and the school, ECEC and system‑level levers that can influence outcomes. To investigate these questions, we have researchers with expertise across a wide range of methods – including qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods methodologies – to undertake primary research.
Finally, we develop and test measurement approaches and tools to provide reliable, valid and usable ways to monitor and assess change – for example in teaching practice or children’s development.
How do you ensure your research approach is designed to match the question?
Different questions call for different research designs and different types of evidence. Part of a researcher’s job is to determine the most appropriate methodology to answer the research question.
Some questions are about effectiveness: Does a particular approach lead to change? Some questions are about patterns: What’s happening across different settings, and for whom? Some questions are about implementation: How is a practice used in real-world contexts, and what supports will help it stick? Others are about measurement: How can we reliably capture something that matters for learning and development?
Across all our research, we’re transparent about how studies are designed and conducted as well as the results of the studies. We publish detailed descriptions of our methodologies, data sources, analytical approaches and research limitations, and we apply quality assurance processes, including ethics approval where required, as well as input and review by subject matter experts. These processes help ensure our research is rigorous, credible and fit for purpose, while remaining grounded in real‑world policy and practice contexts.
What does this look like in AERO's work in practice?
A few examples help illustrate how methodology choices follow the question.
In early childhood, we synthesised contemporary evidence on intentional teaching to understand how it can be strengthened. We found gaps in the beliefs, knowledge and practices that enable intentional teaching, identifying a need for clear, actionable guidance for ECEC educators and teachers to address confusion around the relationship between intentional teaching and play-based learning. In response, we’ve designed field trials to understand intentional teaching in practice and how an intentional teaching model and resources might support practice.
When we wanted to understand how long it takes students learning English as an additional language to develop the English language skills needed to participate equitably in curriculum learning, we analysed 8 years of longitudinal data – including both standardised assessment data and teacher judgements – for more than 110,000 students in NSW government schools. The use of multiple sources of large datasets was essential to answer that question with confidence.
Understanding how investment in quality ECEC can make a difference for children’s development also called for analysis of large datasets. We used existing linked national data on ECEC service quality and children’s development, and found that children attending services with higher National Quality Standard ratings were less likely to be developmentally vulnerable, and we were able to identify the aspects of quality that were particularly important.
To learn more about what makes professional learning for teachers effective, we’re conducting randomised controlled trials to generate rigorous, credible evidence. We’re analysing student assessment data; surveys and interviews of teachers, leaders, stakeholders, trainers and coaches; and financial data to assess cost effectiveness.
AERO’s First Nations research team is leading a qualitative research project to identify the common features of programs seen as culturally safe and effective by First Nations students. This work is guided by First Nations methodologies and Indigenous Data Sovereignty principles, with a strong emphasis on consultation, relationship-building and culturally appropriate sharing of knowledge.
What are AERO's Standards of Evidence?
AERO’s Standards of Evidence are a framework for describing confidence in evidence that a policy, practice or program is effective. They help us make consistent and transparent judgements about the strength of evidence, but they don’t dictate what research we do or which methods we use. Those choices are made based on the research question and context.
Whether we’re synthesising existing evidence or generating new evidence, we look at credibility, quality and relevance. That includes considering how the information was generated, for what purpose, how current it is and who is and isn’t represented.
Usually, the most trustworthy picture comes from drawing on multiple sources – for example, combining quantitative data with qualitative insights – so we can see whether different strands of evidence point to the same conclusion. Importantly, research evidence doesn’t replace the professional wisdom that comes with teaching experience. Rather, it should complement experience, enrich educators’ existing knowledge and give them confidence they’re using the practices most likely to maximise learning in their context.
To what extent does AERO seek to collaborate with others in its research?
Collaboration is fundamental. We’re just one part of a complex education and research ecosystem. Our research agenda is shaped by the needs of our stakeholders, and we work closely with partners throughout the research process.
In some projects, that means joint research with universities or specialist organisations. In others, our role is to do the kind of system-embedded research that sits naturally within the remit of a national agency – using access to system data, working across jurisdictions, and translating findings into practical guidance, resources and implementation insights that can be used at scale.
We also have our own specialist consultation forums. We have a First Nations Expert Reference Group, a Panel of Educators, Teachers and Leaders, and specialist Project Advisory Groups. Collaboration with stakeholders can include co-design, advisory input, joint research or commissioned work.
Final thoughts
Education is complex and education research needs to reflect that. We take a nuanced approach to evidence – there isn’t one method or one type of evidence that answers every question well. AERO’s role is to use the full range of established research approaches, select the best method for each question, implement the approach rigorously, and work with the education community so they can understand, adopt and implement evidence that is both credible and useful.