Primary School Teachers' Experience of School

What Use Is Research? Primary School Teachers’ Experience of Practitioner Research

University of East London

Sir John Cass School of Education and Communities

MA Leadership in Education

What Use Is Research? Primary School Teachers’ Experience of School-based Practitioner Research Daniel J Ayres September 2017

i|Page Daniel J Ayres


Table of Contents INTRODUCTION

1

LITERATURE REVIEW

5

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

18

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

28

CONCLUSIONS

42

REFERENCES

50

APPENDICES

53

ii | P a g e Daniel J Ayres


Introduction Overview This project set out to identify teacher-researcher competencies through an exploratory case study probing the perceptions and realities of teachers’ engagement in research. The literature and findings support a hypothesis that research skills which new teachers develop during their initial training are seldom put to use. The central argument which develops through this study is that school leaders may be failing to identify, value or develop the research skills which their teaching staff hold, and therefore miss opportunities to enhance teaching and learning in their respective institutions. The study focussed on primary teachers’ views within an initial teacher training (ITT) partnership network in London, UK (henceforth referred to as The Partnership). The overarching aim of the study was to understand how the teaching of research skills for trainees on the postgraduate ITT programmes might be enhanced. Establishing the competencies required of new teachers would help The Partnership to ensure the relevance and value of research-focussed modules and training to be run in the future. The project therefore explored the nature of teachers’ engagement in and with research, adopting an exploratory case study approach. Quantitative and qualitative data sets, drawn from surveyed responses, were combined and used alongside a critique of relevant literature to draw conclusions about the research competencies teachers are required to utilise in their professional role. The central research question which drove the investigation was as follows: -

What research skills are required of teachers in their professional role? (Q1)

1|Page Daniel J Ayres


Sub-questions, which were formulated during the exploration of literature, also guided the investigation. The answers to these would add layers of additional understanding to the answers gathers by the central question (Q1). They are as follows: -

How do teachers use research skills developed during their training? (Q2a)

-

What is the nature of teachers’ engagement with research? (Q2b)

The rationale for the project developed, on a local level, through the requirement to evaluate the relevance and effectiveness of ITT across The Partnership. On a national level, the project was prompted by a number of significant publications which emerged, particularly between 2010 and 2016, calling for new teachers to be equipped to access and engage with educational research, and to employ evidence-informed practices in the classroom. Our understanding of practitioner research and the conditions which support it are, however, currently at an early stage of development (Hammersley-Fletcher et al., 2015). We need to establish teachers’ current understanding of research and the competencies and conditions necessary for research activity to be effective in our schools.

The Local Context I am a teacher educator working in ITT in the higher education (HE) sector, at a university in London. I work on 1-year postgraduate ITT programmes throughout The Partnership, and teach on and support delivery of the modules which comprise them. I am the leader of a number of postgraduate modules, including the research module Managing Professional Change and Development: Active inquiry leading to classroom intervention, delivered as part of the PGCE Primary programme. I designed and developed the module, which has run for four years. Trainee teachers are required to carry out a small-scale research project on a topic of their choice, and submit a 4500 word assignment describing their work. The module’s aims and learning outcomes are explicitly designed to provide



trainees with the skills for accessing existing research literature and conducting empirical research while on their school-based training placements in partnership schools (see Appendix A).

The Partnership The Partnership referred to in this study consists of a network of educational institutions which work together to train new primary and secondary school teachers. The roles of stakeholders and nature of the collaborative agreements between schools and the university vary depending on the level of involvement of each partner in ITT. A partner school with Teaching School status for example has a much greater level of responsibility for The Partnership’s trainee teachers than a school offering a single, termly school-based training placement to PGCE trainees. The complexity of the system needs to be considered within the national context.

The National Context The current form that ITT in England takes has been shaped by a sequence of policy reforms which, particularly since the 2010 UK general election have progressed particularly rapidly. The election held on May 6th 2010 returned a hung parliament, following thirteen years of Labour government, and resulted in the formation of a coalition between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. In the first few months following the outcome of the election the Academies Act (Great Britain. Academies Act 2010) was implemented, accelerating the academies programme, and The Importance of Teaching—the Schools White Paper 2010 (DfE, 2010) was published, setting out a plan for educational reform. The White Paper (DfE, 2010) set out actions which the government planned to take in order to address their concerns1 about the education system at the time. Among the proposed actions were steps to improve the quality of new teachers and to develop a school-led system of ITT through the

1

The focus areas included equal opportunities for and achievement of pupils from different ethnicities and locations, burdensome teacher workload, bad behaviour exhibited by pupils, unequal funding for schools, and qualifications deemed as inappropriate (DfE, 2010).



establishment of ‘a new national network of Teaching Schools’ (DfE, 2010, p. 20) which were expected to co-ordinate School Direct, a new employment-based training programme for new teachers.

Teaching schools were also to be charged with a responsibility for research and

development (Hughan, 2012). In 2012 the Department for Education initiated a review of the role of research evidence in and beyond the department, which resulted in a series of reports (e.g. DfE, 2013a; 2013b; 2013c; 2013d; Goldacre, 2013). These publications set out the government’s aim to ensure that policy decisions, school improvement, and class teachers’ practices were all informed by evidence. The review claimed to have identified ‘pockets of brilliant professional practice where evidence is at the heart of improvement’ (DfE, 2013a, p. 3). However it was also determined that there was ‘a paucity of data from the UK … about how best to put effective techniques into practice in the classroom’ (DfE, 2013d, p. 7). The need for evidenceinformed teaching and the existence of a rift between education knowledge and practice is welldocumented and the focus of much attention (e.g. Hammersley-Fletcher et al., 2015; Hargreaves, 1996; HoC, 2010; Sheard & Sharples, 2016). All of which resulted in commitments to both develop a national research resource bank (Carter, 2015), and to equip teachers with the research skills necessary to access and utilise evidence about ‘what works’ to inform their practice.



Literature Review Introduction Teachers can and should be both teachers and researchers, but despite reports of ‘phenomenal growth’ in practitioner research (Ellis & Loughland, 2016, p. 122) it remains unclear how organisations might best support practitioner research (McBeath & Austin, 2015). Some believe that there has been an increase in the teaching of research skills on ITT programmes, continuing professional development (CPD) events, and school-based in-service education and training (InSET) programmes (Hamilton & Corbett-Whittier, 2013). This section critically explores literature for common and conflicting themes of practitioner research, including definitions of research. It draws on studies which consider classroom inquiry, to explore identified links with early- or continuing professional development, searching for the skills and attributes which new teachers require. The section starts by critically examining the development of practitioner research in relation to the teaching profession.

Research Before exploring terms related to research by teachers, in classrooms, an overarching definition is required. My understanding and use of research aligns to McGrath and Coles’ (2013) description of ‘a logical process using data and/or theory to increase the researcher’s understanding of the phenomena under investigation’ (p. 237). I would add to this definition the investigative nature of the process – the researcher investigates the phenomenon in question, and the importance of sharing outcomes. These notions stem from Stenhouse’s (1975) work on curriculum research and development. Stenhouse explored teachers’ engagement in research, in the 1970s and early 1980s, through the Humanities Curriculum Project (Stenhouse, 1975). The work involved teachers implementing and evaluating curricula models (Rudduck & Hopkins, 1985; Stenhouse, 1975). Teachers and pupils would pursue their understandings of the world together using the curriculum as a vehicle for the



exploration of knowledge, moving teachers from providers of information towards engaged, active agents in the learning process. Fordham (2016) identifies two broad but distinct directions that school-based research has steered since Stenhouse’s project work: A means of professional development, and the production of knowledge about good practice. The former route might also serve to develop greater professional autonomy depending, as we shall see, on school context and culture, and teachers’ levels of selfreflection and self-awareness (Fordham, 2016; Hamilton & Corbett-Whittier, 2013). Either way, Stenhouse’s original conceptualisation of research has been ‘eclipsed’ (Fordham, 2016, p. 135) by a current preoccupation with the specific development of practice among many groups of educators. It should be noted that Stenhouse was working on curriculum design and evaluation at a particular time of freedom in schools (Fordham, 2016), which was about to come to an end via the 1988 Education Reform Act (Great Britain. Education Reform Act 1988). It heralded the introduction of GCSEs, a prescribed national curriculum, and an assessment regime which sought to systematically evaluate the extent to which learners achieved curriculum outcomes, through standardised national testing. Teaching and teachers became managed, accountable and subject to control. While teachers in other European countries enjoyed far greater levels of professional autonomy than in England (Hulse & Hulme, 2012). A key political commitment shaping our current education system was to reduce ‘the bureaucratic burden on schools, cutting away unnecessary duties, processes, guidance and requirements’ (DfE, 2010, p. 9). This would suggest that the time may once again be right to embark on the development of a practitioner-driven research movement. However, the emergence of political dialogue probing for evidence of what works in classrooms serves a particular political agenda (Sheard & Sharples, 2016). There are consequently contrasting, polarised stances taken on the literature of education research. This can be seen, for example, by contrasting the perspectives demonstrated in the report on evidence-based teaching, by



Hammersley-Fletcher et al. (2015), with Cordingley’s (2013) report on the contribution of research to teachers’ CPD. The focus of the report by Hammersley-Fletcher et al. (2015) centres on a specific model of evidence based practice, which values scientific testing and experimentation over qualitative exploration and evaluation. The study also concentrates specifically on Teaching Schools – a certain category of schools – to the exclusion of all others. The report reflects a weak attempt to demonstrate a positive impact of policies developed from the vision presented in The Schools White Paper 2010 (DfE, 2010). Cordingley’s (2013) work, by contrast, stands on an assumption that current governmental policies, including the establishment of Teaching Schools, ‘promote localism and thus increase fragmentation’ (p. 2) of the educational landscape. Cordingley’s (2013) presentation of ideas builds on an assumption of a ‘long and distinguished pedigree’ of practitioner research (p. 3). The report makes reference to the work of John Dewey, Lawrence Stenhouse and David Hargreaves, all of whom espouse a sympathetic stance towards qualitative methodologies, and value academic endeavour and theoretically-informed educational research. A further example of the particular perspectives currently informing policy and practice can be seen in the work of Goldacre (2013) and Sheard & Sharples (2016). They claim that, as the field of medicine was transformed by developing a culture of systematic testing of treatments, such scientific approaches should inform education. However, as Hargreaves (1996) pointed out, the academic structures in medicine differ to those of teaching. Medical professionals share – and rely on – a technical knowledge base rooted in the biomedical sciences. Teachers however have no such shared knowledge base and, as Hargreaves (1996) pointed out, are able to be effective practitioners without knowledge of foundational disciplines of education, such as psychology, sociology and philosophy. Simple application of the scientific research principles developed in medicine, as proposed by Goldacre (2013), would therefore result in research which would both diminish the involvement of individual teachers and be of limited value to those seeking to study and improve their own practice. 7|Page Daniel J Ayres


Practitioner Research It is important, before continuing, to highlight that there is a huge breadth and variety of terms, titles and definitions associated with teacher research. The field is further clouded by parallel themes of, for example, reflective practice and continuing professional development (CPD) (BERA-RSA, 2014). To ensure and demonstrate understanding of the literature, the key terms used to characterise engagement in and with research by teachers must be clearly defined. To support this undertaking a record of significant labels encountered during the review of literature has been maintained and appended (Appendix B). The appended log indicates the term ‘practitioner research’ to be prevalent in literature concerned with research by professionals in education, social and health services (Davies et al., 2007; Ellis & Loughland, 2016; Hamilton & Whittier, 2013; Lunt & Shaw, 2017; Vetter, 2012). However it must be remembered that it remains a ‘blanket term that encompasses many different traditions, movements and methodologies [including] teacher-research, practitioner inquiry, problem-based inquiry, action research and action learning’ (Ellis & Loughland, 2016, p. 122-123). Fordham (2016) reminds us to also consider that reflective practice and professional knowledge production are included in this mix, as ‘two broad traditions’ of practitioner research (p. 136). Nonetheless, I propose that ‘practitioner research’ is the appropriate term for this study: It is characterised by a desire or commitment to understand practice, through investigation, assessment and evaluation, with the aim of developing and improving teaching methods and interventions (Lunt & Shaw, 2017). The definition aligns well with McGrath and Coles’ (2013) descriptions, discussed earlier, and with Stenhouse’s (1975) description of an ‘extended professional’, which provides a concise description of how practitioner research might be realised: Autonomous professional self-development through systematic self-study, through the study of work of other teachers and through testing of ideas by classroom research procedures. (Stenhouse, 1975, p. 144) 8|Page Daniel J Ayres


The term ‘practitioner research’ inherently reflects research activity which is practitioner led, as opposed to being initiated or conducted by external institutions – a distinction analysed above, and highlighted by McBeath & Austin (2015) and by Lunt & Shaw’s (2017) type 2 configuration of practitioner-informed research. By ‘practitioner’ we might be referring to individuals or to communities of educators working collaboratively (Enthoven & de Bruijn, 2010; Hamilton & Corbett-Whittier, 2013). The collaborative nature of practitioner research and its potential to contribute to a collective understanding is a crucial point given the growing popularity of school-based collaborative ‘professional enquiry groups’ (Carter, 2015, p. 43) undertaking classroom-based research in various forms. However practitioner research and the way that teachers perceive and engage with it is under-explored (Hulse & Hulme, 2012), hence the need for some exploration of literature in this area.

Practitioner Research in Schools There is consensus that professionals can benefit from research if it is valued and used to inform practice (e.g. BERA-RSA, 2014; Carter, 2015; Lunt & Shaw; 2017). Specifically, teachers should engage with, and become ‘critical consumers’ of research (Goldacre, 2013, p. 13). They should be willing and able to evaluate and challenge research findings (Carter, 2015), avoiding either uncritical acceptance or casual dismissal (Rudduck & Hopkins, 1985). And, therefore, teachers need to be systematically taught how to access and interpret research, during ITT and beyond (Carter, 2015). Attride-Stirling (2001, in Hulse & Hulme, 2012) studied the outcomes of research activity during ITT. Perhaps predictably trainees’ responses indicated initial apprehension giving way to benefits: Trainees felt empowered, increased levels of self-confidence, and a sense of belonging. They felt they had made a positive contribution to knowledge, while facilitating their own professional learning and development. Hulse & Hulme (2012) align the benefits of these positive feelings to notions of teachers’ professional identity formation (McNally, 2006, in Hulse & Hulme, 2012).



Embracing principles of research-informed practice drives teaching toward a ‘new kind of professionalism’ (Hamilton & Corbett-Whittier, 2013, p. 122) and empowers teachers. They steer their own professional development by learning from experiences about how to move their pupils’ learning forward (BERA-RSA, 2014). They develop perceptions of their work as a moral and intellectual undertaking (Hulse & Hulme, 2012) which may even impact on career longevity. Carter (2015) adds the following benefits for schools, of teachers engaging in research activity, claiming it is ‘critical that ITT should teach trainees why engaging with research is important’ (p. 8): -

deeper teacher subject and pedagogical knowledge;

-

higher standards of educational attainment;

-

capturing insights through multiple perspectives;

-

fostering collaborative working;

-

improving teaching and learning. (Carter, 2015, pp. 28-29)

Where collaborative inquiry is encouraged, knowledge and understanding about effective practice is spread, through shared exploration of ideas (BERA-RSA, 2014). However the level of such encouragement is dependent on the leadership and management of a school – a lack of support for practitioner research by school leadership can present a significant challenge (Ellis & Loughland, 2016; McBeath & Austin, 2015).

Leadership & Management Where practitioner research is neither encouraged nor valued by school leadership, or where research is viewed with cynicism, the undertaking is significantly challenging for practitioners. The relationship between leadership and practitioner research is more complex than this, however. School leadership is ‘a crucial factor in developing a research culture’ (Hammersley-Fletcher et al., 2015, p. 25). And even if a culture of collaborative practitioner inquiry is developed in a school, according to Ellis and Loughland (2016), the way that leaders might presuppose a particular form or understanding of research leadership may place constraints on practitioners. 10 | P a g e Daniel J Ayres


Leaders themselves may be inexperienced, or may lack research knowledge, or the vision to lead ‘a research enterprise’ (Ellis & Loughland, 2016, p. 129). Leaders may simply not see drawing on research worthwhile, in the practice framework they construct (Ellis & Loughland, 2016), given existing pressures and demands on schools and staff. There may be other valuable projects being implemented, which leadership teams would like to complete. Concerns for the potential impact of embarking on additional, perhaps new ventures when existing projects are underway may be legitimate. McBeath and Austin (2015) set about categorising the barriers to research activity, by different organisational facets, as follows. -

Institutional

-

Workforce development

-

Social support

-

Culture and climate

Institutional Limited evidence appears to have been gathered through research into the specific characteristics of a school which might effectively facilitate practitioner research and develop teachers as such (McBeath & Austin, 2015). School-centred research tends to reflect self-reported evaluation of specific strategies or interventions, in a particular school. Research into classroom practices also reflects this; school-based research tends to draw from pupil data, rather than using qualitative approaches or evidence to develop innovative practices which enhance pupil learning (HammersleyFletcher et al., 2015). In fact, in institutions where prescribed curricula models are delivered, within performative audit cultures of schooling, involving high-stakes testing and accountability, practitioner research can even be seen to conflict with, rather than support, institutional priorities (e.g. Ellis & Loughland, 2016).

Workforce development (CPD) Davies et al., (2007) present their exploration of senior leaders’ views on and perceptions of research. It seems that although managers may speak of the value of the research findings, they are also 11 | P a g e Daniel J Ayres


interested in practitioner research as a. a form of staff development and, b. a perk given to a valued member of staff. Teachers (including head teachers) should instead be seen as ‘change agents’ (Ellis & Loughland, 2016; Vetter, 2012, p. 28; Stenhouse, 1975), and should be developed as such, so that they are motivated to continually improve their practice (Vetter, 2012). Top down models of workforce development, including experts training teachers or imposition of new ways of working, are a less effective means of staff development than lesson study groups, (Vetter, 2012), or mentoring arrangements – more effective approaches to workforce development since they relate directly to the teachers themselves architects of change themselves (Vetter, 2012). Practitioner research by its nature focuses on a teacher’s particular context, involves active participation, decision-making, and collaboration. These are among the ingredients of effective, transformative professional development.

Social support Where collaborative learning is ‘interwoven into organizational and staff practices’ (McBeath & Austin, 2015, p. 448) practitioner research is likely to thrive, benefitting teachers’ own practice and contributing to achievement of organizational goals. However, where a perceptions exists that practitioner research is likely to demand much time and effort, there is likely to be less support provided. Ellis and Loughland (2016) report that often the reality of practitioner research demands a huge commitment on behalf of a school’s teachers, and redeployment of resources to support collaborative projects or the commencement of research activity. To avoid research-minded practitioners feeling isolated or undervalued, support from school leadership is crucial (McBeath & Austin, 2015). So, do leaders consider partnership with HEIs – drawing on the expertise of university departments – as potential support for practitioner research? Here the literature appears divided. Carter (2015) suggests HEIs might support schools ‘to become research-rich environments and to help them drive school improvement and impact positively on pupil outcomes and achievements’ (2015, p. 42). Indeed Sheard and Sharples (2016) describe a project in which external researchers supported 12 | P a g e Daniel J Ayres


school-based practitioner researchers to do their jobs by, for example, providing research summaries, reflecting Carter’s (2015) recommendation. This represents a successful example of a purposeful community of stakeholders playing to their strengths, towards the common goal: the production of knowledge about effective practice (Fordham, 2016).

Culture & Climate Ellis and Loughland (2016) analyse the impact of practitioner research within and on schools’ existing ‘practice architectures’ (p. 122). Where research activity is afforded less prominence it is more likely that individuals would have to negotiate support, time and resources (McBeath & Austin, 2015) in order to engage in research activity. They identify ‘a scarcity of time [due to] the pressure of completing the syllabus’ (Ellis & Loughland, 2016, p. 133) among the cultural barriers to practitioner research. The lack of time and resources is a commonly cited issue with practitioner research, but this may be the result of external organisational pressure and accountability. The nature of organisational pressure is such that there is a tendency amongst some school leaders to be more enthusiastic about participating in a programme of practitioner research than about facilitating engagement with it (Davies et al., 2007). For teachers to question and explore practice – key aspects, as we will see, of practitioner research – ‘a culture of enquiry, collaboration and professional dialogue’ (Ellis & Loughland, 2016, p.125) must be nurtured, with the necessary underpinning trust generated at leadership level. Carter’s (2015) report supports such a stance, claiming that teacher development is effective when teachers collaborate, when schools see themselves as ‘centres of professional learning [and when] the notion of the teacher as researcher is continuously reinforced’ (Carter, 2015, p.22). By promoting – and possibly modelling – enquiry-based professional learning (Cordingley, 2013) leaders can create conditions which enable enquiry-oriented teaching (BERA-RSA, 2014).

Characteristics of Practitioner Research It is necessary to return the focus of this review to the characteristics and skills required of practitioner researchers. How are they identified in literature on the subject? How can teachers 13 | P a g e Daniel J Ayres


take advantage of a supportive school culture, should they encounter it? The joint BERA-RSA (2014) inquiry into the role of research in teacher education specified that teachers should engage with research to keep up to date with current evidence and ideas, and to inform their classroom practice. Indeed, these aspects of research-engaged teaching are confirmed and encouraged by the 2016 framework of core content for ITT (Munday, 2016), a report likely to influence national practices in ITT. Prior to the reports by Carter (2015) and Munday (2016), edits to the annual NQT survey in 2013 highlighted the government’s focus on research training in ITT. The survey – an annual collation of new teachers’ views about their training – was altered to reflect the findings of the review of the role of education research evidence (i.e. DfE, 2013a; 2013b; 2013c). The new research-focussed questions included in the survey asked trainees to evaluate how good their training had been in preparing them to access educational research, to assess the robustness of educational research, and to understand and apply the findings from educational research. As a consequence, these aspects of practitioner research shall be explored as part of the study. Stenhouse (1975) and McBeath & Austin (2015) go into more detail about the specific skills and attributes required of practitioner researchers. They will therefore be summarised and set out here, to inform a thematic framework for analysis of the empirical data gathered by this study. The characteristics of Stenhouse’s (1975) ‘extended professional’ focussed on preparedness to engage in research activity, rather than presenting a specific skill set. However, these characteristics underpin successful research activity, and are as follows: -

a commitment to questioning one’s own practice as a basis for development;

-

a commitment and the skills to study one’s own teaching;

-

a concern to question and test theory in practice;

-

a readiness to allow others to observe one’s work and engage in open, honest

discussion. (Stenhouse, 1975) 14 | P a g e Daniel J Ayres


McBeath & Austin (2015) present the following characteristics which demonstrate a ‘researchminded’ teacher, with a clear overlap with Stenhouse’s (1975) vision: -

an unwillingness to rely on status quo explanations;

-

an ability to use knowledge from a variety of sources;

-

an interest in learning for the purpose of organizational improvement;

-

the ability to seize on uncertainty and ambiguity to actively question and

experiment; -

a capacity to critically engage in understanding how practice informs research and

how research informs practice. (McBeath & Austin, 2015, p. 447) Central to both of these sets of characteristics is the requirement for teachers ‘to critically reflect on [and] to theorize about practice’ (Austin et al., 2012, cited in McBeath & Austin, 2015, p. 446). It would seem then that critical reflection involving practical issues or problems aligns strongly with practitioner research (Lunt & Shaw, 2017). This is a crucial connection to reflective practice skills, which are valued and developed in trainees on ITT programmes in England (Ayres, 2014a). A capacity for critical reflection is a fundamental attribute new teachers require for the development of professional knowledge (Hamilton et al., 2007; McBeath & Austin, 2015). Other documented benefits of reflective practice include greater professional autonomy and the development of deeper understanding of experience (e.g. Ayres, 2014a; Stenhouse, 1975; Schön, Dewey and Brookfield, cited in Vetter, 2012). However exploration of the literature exposes an unfortunately detrimental parallel which exists between perceptions of both reflective practice and practitioner research.

Perceptions of Practitioner Research For example, school-based research is at times demonstrably limited, and lacking in validity (Fordham, 2016) due to the context-specificity in which the research is generally conducted. Fordham (2016) directly questions the contextual relevance of research generated by individual teachers. Conclusions may well be relevant only to the school or classroom in which the research was conducted, as it is with reflective practice. It is therefore likely to appear irrelevant to wider 15 | P a g e Daniel J Ayres


audiences (Fordham, 2016) regardless of how rigorous the processes behind the research, or the potential value of the findings to others (Hamilton et al., 2007). The matter of relevance is an important one throughout educational research. Even research produced by top universities can be seen as inaccessible (Mills, 2014), inappropriate or useless to practitioners (Hammersley-Fletcher et al., 2015). Perceptions also exist that practices cannot be changed by simply informing teachers of the results of research studies (Mills, 2014). Some teachers will view research as ‘arcane, distant from practice concerns, and/or foisted on staff by funders and accrediting bodies’ (McBeath & Austin, 2015, p. 449). Engagement in both reflective practice and practitioner research has been ‘associated with considerable professional uncertainty and anxiety’ (McBeath & Austin, 2015, p. 449). Even if teachers are ‘research-minded’ they may encounter significant and potentially harmful personal barriers to meaningful and beneficial engagement. These perceptions however are strongly affected by the institutional priorities, practices and procedures of each school (Hammersley-Fletcher et al., 2015; Sheard & Sharples, 2016) which, as has been discussed, determines how research is viewed.

Conclusions However the teaching profession approaches the development of the role of research, all stakeholders of the debate share a common goal – the production of knowledge about effective practice (Fordham, 2016). It appears though that schools leadership is to be a crucial, determining factor in the utilisation of teachers’ research skills in the future. An unsupportive head teacher becomes a barrier to practitioner research, since a number of potential challenges to research engagement exist, influenced by leadership decisions.

These include pressure to cover the

curriculum, a lack of time, inadequate training, difficulties documenting research findings appropriately and effectively, a lack of sustained commitment to projects, and difficulty finding suitable academic partners (Ellis & Loughland, 2016).

16 | P a g e Daniel J Ayres

A workplace climate unsupportive of


practitioner research, as one might expect, presents significant challenges for professionals intending to undertake research into their practice (Ellis & Loughland, 2016). Having said that, themes have emerged from the literature which encompass the necessary characteristics and skills which teachers need in order to engage in practitioner research: commitment, collaboration, capability, curiosity and capacity. These themes have each been given a code label and descriptive summary, in line with Fereday and Muir-Cochrane’s (2006) hybrid approach to thematic analysis, discussed in the following section. These codes and descriptions, along with the sources to which the descriptions relate, are presented in Appendix C and will serve as a theoretical framework to support the organisation and analysis of data.



Research Methodology To some, research methodology reflects the ‘assembly of research tools and the application of appropriate research rules’ (Newby, 2010, p. 51). However I believe the term has a more complex relationship with research activity than this. Methodology underpins a researcher’s approach to the construction and analysis of knowledge. It is therefore important that I am mindful of ontological perspectives: An individual’s alignment with a particular ontological tradition has implications for their research approach and influences the aims of their research activity (Coleman & Briggs, 2002; Gray, 2004). So I am going to contrast positivist and interpretivist perspectives, with a view to highlighting my own methodological alignment. Positivism refers to philosophical views of the nature of knowledge which take experience at face value. Things are only meaningful if they are observable. Our entire body of knowledge is defined by what is verifiable, or a matter of logical deduction. The positivist also sees knowledge as hard, objective and tangible (Urmson & Ree, 1991). In terms of research activity, a positivist approach values the observed connections between concepts and measured outcomes, and values quantitative methods which tend to generate statistical data (Newby, 2010). Critics argue that positivist approaches eliminate contextual factors in the search for quantifiable objective measures, and ignore human elements. Cohen et al. (2011) suggests that positivism is unsuccessful in dealing with the complexity of human nature. Tackling natural or humanistic traits with essentially a statistical, reductionist approach can do little justice to the intricate detail of human actions and interactions, which must surely be observed and interpreted. This approach is characterised by a concern for individuals, and a view of the world formed ‘in terms of its actors’ (Cohen et al., 2011). An interpretive theoretical perspective embraces qualitative methods, and might prompt a researcher to conduct observations of phenomena, or to explore individual or group experiences. Some interpretative traditions aim for the exclusion of the



researcher’s pre-existing beliefs, and the avoidance of bias. I would argue that researchers are unable to analyse findings without interference from personal bias, political drivers, and pre-existing values and beliefs. In fact, these contextual pressures should be considered, in terms of the influence they might exert on participants. Newby (2010) supports this, concluding that whether one’s aim is to embrace or eliminate personal bias, interference with research findings must be acknowledged. The intention behind this project is to identify teacher-researcher competencies through an exploration of teachers’ perceptions and experiences of their engagement in research. Thus, an interpretative methodological approach, which seeks to gather the voices of participants, is appropriate. At this point it is necessary to consider specific research approaches – study designs – which might act as the vehicle for this interpretative exploration. Action research has a well-documented but complex history (Mills, 2014). However the key purpose of an action research approach is generally to inform the improvement of practice. It is an applied, systematic procedure for gathering information, developing understanding and seeking to bring about positive change (Creswell, 2005; Mills, 2014; Newby, 2010). In terms of educational research, the approach ‘is not about doing research on or about people, or finding all available information on a topic looking for the correct answers … it is about how we can change our instruction to impact students’ (Ferrance, 2000, p. 3). While this study explores teachers’ relationship with action research, and draws conclusions about improvements to practices, the project itself does not align with principle tenets of an action research approach. As this project seeks to access the perceptions and experiences of teachers in The Partnership, in order to develop an understanding of their engagement in and with research, an alternative research approach is necessary. The case study design also has a mixed and rather complex heritage (Creswell, 2005; Hamilton & Corbett-Whittier, 2013). It became established in the social sciences in the first half of the twentieth century. Though it was developed as an approach in sociology, it was used in many other subjects 19 | P a g e Daniel J Ayres


including geography, psychology and education (Newby, 2010). The purpose of adopting a case study approach is to provide insight into or appraisal of a situation (Bromley, 1986; Hamilton & Corbett-Whittier, 2013; Stenhouse, 1975). Rather than seeking to prove or refute theory, case studies are usually undertaken with a view to formulating theories (Bromley, 1986). Case studies in an educational context can employ both qualitative and quantitative methods, and often utilise different forms of data. A rich combination of data sources allow for thorough analysis and for legitimate conclusions to be drawn (Ayres, 2014b; Hamilton & Corbett-Whittier, 2013) about the object or phenomenon under investigation. This study aims to explore the perceptions of several related individuals – i.e. teachers within The Partnership – and therefore an appropriate research approach would be an exploratory case study design (Creswell, 2005). The exploratory case study is characterised by the intention to look for patterns in data. To help ensure the legitimacy of conclusions (Hamilton & Corbett-Whittier, 2013) perspectives must be sought using at least two different forms of data collection.

Data collection A large amount of data is gathered about students while at university, through questionnaires, evaluations and audits of progress, attendance, and attainment. Information about trainees undertaking ITT programmes is similarly extensive. It was therefore important to consider whether the answers to the research questions might not be already available in existing, secondary data sets. ITT cohorts are surveyed for their views about their programme and among the questions asked are the three research-focussed NQT questions discussed previously, and as follows: How good was your training in: -

preparing you to access educational research in your teaching practice?

-

preparing you to assess the robustness of your educational research?

-

preparing you to understand and apply the findings from your educational research?



Trainees’ compiled responses to these questions are likely to provide insight into their perceptions of their research skills, and provide answers for questions Q2a and Q2b. Statistical data will therefore be collected and compiled from programme evaluations and available newly qualified teacher (NQT) survey archives, and presented and analysed to inform this study. In order to answer the key research question – What research skills are required of teachers in their professional role? (Q1) – an additional, alternative data set was required. The views of stakeholders in The Partnership would provide answers to Q1 and add levels of understanding about interpretations of the statistical data. While interviews are a valuable method for exploring views and beliefs, they can be time consuming – in terms of planning, implementation, and transcription – and therefore the number and range of participants is likely to be limited. An alternative more efficient method, for surveying the views of a range of people, is through a questionnaire (Newby, 2010). Questionnaires are useful for systematically accessing the anonymous views of a large number of people and so this was the chosen method. While it seemed that this was a good way of proceeding, but there are pitfalls: Questionnaires can also be time consuming to design, process and analyse. Also, the questions might be misinterpreted or missed out by respondents, answers can sometimes be superficial, and response rates can be low (Newby, 2010). However I pressed ahead with the use of a questionnaire, and my interpretivist stance steered me towards the use of open questions. These allow respondents the space to provide their own words and for me ‘to obtain a richer picture’ (Newby, 2010, p. 298) of the nature of teachers’ research skills. Open questions are also likely to produce a wider range of responses which will make for richer analysis and discussion. Newby (2010) also confirms that open questions are appropriate for gathering factual knowledge, understanding, mental modes, and ideas, values and beliefs. Also, open questions appear less likely to influence respondents or generate bias than closed questions (Newby, 2010), a consideration in keeping with my commitment to a wholly ethical approach to research, which will be discussed shortly. 21 | P a g e Daniel J Ayres


The Questionnaire Participants were asked six questions, with the aim of keeping the questionnaire as short and simple as possible. This was to avoid cognitive overload and aim to maintain a healthy response rate (Newby, 2010). A key principle behind the chosen questions included the avoidance of inherent bias. For example suggestions that engagement in or with research is particularly good or bad, or asking respondents to agree or disagree with normative statements about research, were avoided. The use of ‘imputed’ questions (Newby, 2010, p. 315) might influence respondents towards a certain response. The chosen questions follow, and a brief explanation and rational for each question is provided in the table at Appendix D: Q1. Which of the following labels best describe your professional role? (Multiple options provided.) Q2. To what extent would you describe yourself as a researcher? Q3. How would you define 'research'? Q4. What impact does research have on your professional role as an educator? Q5. What is the nature of your involvement in research? Q6. What research skills, attributes and/or values do you possess? The questionnaire was pre-tested in two ways. The research plan was shared with delegates at an education conference. This gave me the opportunity to gather thoughts on the research design, my chosen approach and the wording of the questions. The second test involved a group of trainees, who would not form part of the ultimate sample frame, who agreed to pilot the questionnaire and provide feedback (Creswell, 2005). As a result of these tests the sequence of questions was adjusted, and the word ‘values’ was inserted into the final question. The number of questions was also reduced (from eight), by omitting two questions originally posed which either confused participants (by using the wording of the NQT survey) or generated no additional information to questions already asked. The pilot group had difficulty responding to the openness of Q4 – the question about impact. This was partly because of uncertainty surrounding their professional role, and partly due to a lack 22 | P a g e Daniel J Ayres


of clarity surrounding the meaning of ‘impact’ and how to evaluate it. Although this question wasn’t altered – it was seen as a necessary inclusion, and was likely to confuse qualified teachers to a lesser extent. The questions were compiled and delivered using a secure online survey tool, since current technology allows for efficient distribution of questionnaires. One of the unfortunate implications of this is participant lethargy (Newby, 2010) and an unwillingness to complete questionnaires. Email systems are able to identify and divert messages which might be of no interest or relevance to the user, which may result in them being missed altogether. An additional concern regarding the nature of this project identified by Newby (2010) is that people may be more reluctant to invest effort into typing answers to open questions. These factors contribute to low response rates to emailed questionnaires2, possibly below 10% according to Newby (2010, p. 330). So, it is important that the use of questionnaires is carefully considered, in terms of whose views are required, and to provide an introductory overview the study for potential participants, to ensure transparency.

(The

participant information sheet drafted for this study can be found in Appendix E). So, whose views were required? It seemed logical to consult NQTs, to reveal how they might have applied research skills beyond their training year. However, it was reasonable to believe that some NQTs might have either avoided or been discouraged from research engagement in their induction year. The views of qualified teachers, beyond their NQT year, may therefore be just as valuable. So it was decided not to limit invitations to specific groups, and to consult a broad range of teachers for their views about practitioner-research, an approach which Hammersley-Fletcher et al. (2015) justifies and utilises successfully. The questionnaire would be disseminated though existing communication networks within The Partnership. Rather than sending a plea to everyone, a more ethically principled approach would be

2

The 2015 NQT Survey for example reported just a 24% response rate (Gorard, 2015).



taken, aligned to theoretical sampling methods (Newby, 2010; Walliman, 2006). I sent invitations to teachers in The Partnership with whom a professional relationship had already been established, and alumni who had formed part of my tutor groups. In this way I believed they might see the relevance and value of the study to our ITT work, and would be more willing to be frank and open about their beliefs. They might also be more likely to participate, and help me to avoid the low response rate highlighted previously. The Partnership was the sample frame (Newby, 2010), and can be considered representative of national ITT networks throughout England. Although a case study approach is distinct from sample based research (Rudduck & Hopkins, 1985) it was important to seek the views of an appropriate number of participants within this ‘frame’. Fifty participants was the ‘minimum target’ required by Hammersley-Fletcher et al. (2015), as in interpretivist – adamant that qualitative data are essential for gathering understandings – it was a practical requirement to limit the number of participants to this figure. Based on an estimated maximum response rate of 25% (Newby 2010; NCTL, 2015) I therefore emailed 200 invitations to participate to 50 qualified teachers in 13 different schools, and to approximately 150 trainees who had qualified in the previous 3 years3. In order to encourage participation, and in the spirit of both Stenhouse’s (1975) definition of research and notions of ethical research practices, my email invite included an offer to visit teachers and to present findings from this study at their school.

Analytical Approach As an interpretative researcher I am eager to prioritise participants’ voices and gather authentic views. I therefore steer towards an inductive approach to the analysis of qualitative data. That is, an approach which allows themes to emerge from the data rather than testing theories or imposing pre-determined categories. However, an inductive approach would not necessarily be the most appropriate way of interpreting the data for this study given such pervasive historical and political

3

Figures are approximate given the scale of email communication, and reliance on data which would realistically contain a number of both erroneous and defunct email addresses.



themes that have been identified in the literature. Therefore, the hybrid approach to analysis outlined by Fereday & Muir-Cochrane (2006) was adapted for use in this study. The hybrid approach used is ‘guided, but not confined’ by a theoretically-driven framework of codes (Appendix C), and allows ‘additional codes’ (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006, p. 88) to develop during initial treatment of qualitative data (Appendix F). Codes established from the literature will be integrated with codes which emerge from the data, before they are used to organise and explore themes and patterns in the data, as part of a systematic, 3-stage process based on the Fereday & Muir-Cochrane (2006) method. Stage 1: Developing Theory-Driven Codes (Appendix C). The initial development of codes and their labels helps to ensure a theoretical framework for analysis. Codes might stem from established philosophical, theoretical or conceptual models or, as in the case of this study, from research characteristics and competencies – the concepts identified and explored in the literature. The codes are presented with a descriptive definition to help ensure consistent application, and to provide a theoretical framework for analysis of the empirical data gathered for the study. Stage 2: Reading data, applying codes and additional coding (Appendix F). Having established a ‘code manual’ (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006, p. 84) the codes are applied to the responses to the questionnaires, a question at a time. During this process additional codes may be created where themes emerge, either developing an existing code or creating a separate code altogether. Stage 3: Connecting codes and exploring themes Once the deductive and inductive processes have been complete the analysis continues by seeking ‘similarities and differences … indicating areas of consensus in response to the research questions and areas of potential conflict’ (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006, p. 89). While this is a staged, 25 | P a g e Daniel J Ayres


systematic process, I would expect the analysis to cause me to review the preliminary code descriptions and to draft and redraft inductive codes to incorporate new ideas, in a more cyclical manner (Newby, 2010). Indeed, Fereday & Muir-Cochrane (2006) describe the repeated need for scrutiny of all stages, and the development of ‘several iterations’ (p. 90) coded themes. Exploring patterns in this systematic, staged manner though improves the ‘interpretative rigor’ (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006, p. 82) behind the analysis, and serves to ensure more valid, credible conclusions. While the approach is transparent and arguably replicable, there do remain limitations to such an interpretative approach which will be reflected upon in the conclusions.

Research Ethics Approval for this project was sought and received from the appropriate university research ethics committee, in advance of any data being collected. However, formal approval was but one aspect of ethics considered during this project. The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity (2010) outlines four key principles underpinning research integrity: Honesty, accountability, professional courtesy and fairness, and good stewardship, and as a member of the academic community I feel a sense of duty to explicitly uphold these principles. I do this primarily by ensuring I have a good working knowledge of key ethical principles of research activity. For example, in my teaching I communicate the principles though the framework presented by the British Educational Research Association (BERA): Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research (BERA, 2011). And to help ensure my own robust working knowledge of research ethics I completed my university’s research integrity training (certificate attached at Appendix G). Ensuring that research decisions and methods are appropriate and transparent not only serves to reassure potential participants (BERA, 2011) but enables the wider research community to judge whether conclusions rest on ‘a sound methodological foundation’ (Newby, 2010, p. 455). Given the interpretivist paradigm within which this work sits, a key ethical consideration is my proximity to the subject and data, and the fact that I developed the codes used for the initial analysis. While I will not aim to remove the personal lens through which I will view my work, in the following analytical 26 | P a g e Daniel J Ayres


discussion I must acknowledge its effect and seek to recognise times at which personal biases might be interfering with interpretations.



Discussion and Analysis This section commences by setting out and analysing quantitative data from ITT programme evaluations and NQT survey archives. It will then explore the data gathered by questionnaire, about teachers’ perceptions and experiences of engaging with and conducting research in schools, using Fereday and Muir-Cochrane’s (2006) staged, hybrid approach to qualitative analysis. This section will conclude by considering limitations of the study, and how these affect the conclusions to be drawn, and my future work as a teacher and researcher. Throughout, findings will be related to literature critiqued earlier, in order to inform legitimate conclusions and recommendations.

Programme Evaluations The quantitative survey data used in this study indicates trainees’ satisfaction with aspects of their ITT programme. It is compiled from two sources: data gathered from trainees during their ITT, and NQT survey data collected and published by the government. Trainees were required to indicate the quality of their training on a 4-point scale, from poor to very good. The following research-focussed questions were among those posed: How good was your training in: 1.

preparing you to access educational research in your teaching practice?

2.

preparing you to assess the robustness of your educational research?

3.

preparing you to understand and apply the findings from your educational research?

Three years of complete data sets were compiled (Appendix H)4, representing the perceptions of three separate postgraduate cohorts of trainees (years 1, 2 & 3), at the following three points in the career: -

prior to undertaking the research module (Spring);

-

following completion of the research module (Summer);

4

The following year’s NQT survey questions were redesigned in a way to make year-on year comparison difficult, as acknowledged by the NCTL (2015).



-

during the spring term the following year – during their NQT year (NQT Survey).

The following two observations can be made from the compiled data. Firstly, there is an increase in the percentage of trainees who perceived their preparedness as satisfactory or better, in response to all three questions, and in every year following delivery of the research module (i.e. between the spring and summer survey responses). This is to be expected since there are close parallels between the survey questions and the module’s aims and learning outcomes (Appendix A). For example, trainees are expected to critically evaluate current educational research, and to use research to inform the development of pedagogy and practice. These outcomes require trainees to demonstrate their ability to access, assess and apply research in practice. However, there is a contrary pattern when comparing trainees’ responses in the summer term with their responses during their NQT year. Each cohort indicated a decline in the percentage of trainees who perceive their preparedness in all three research-related areas to be satisfactory or better. This suggests that trainees were finding themselves less-well prepared than they had expected, once in school and carrying out the full range of duties required of class teachers. While the pattern might suggest shortcomings in training or gaps in teachers’ research skills, the challenges cited by Ellis and Loughland (2016) and Hammersley-Fletcher et al., (2015) must be considered: a school culture which does not encourage or value practitioner research presents a significant challenge to research-minded teachers. An NQT in such a school would be likely to report that they had not been well prepared to apply research findings in their practice. A closer look at the data supports this theory, but indicates a more complex picture. Although overall percentages fall between the summer and NQT surveys, the percentage of trainees feeling prepared to an outstanding extent increases in every case. For example, looking at cohort 2’s responses to survey question 3 – How good was your training in preparing you to understand and apply the findings from your educational research? – the percentage of outstanding responses rises



from 12% in the summer term to 25% during the NQT year. This pattern reflects a number of possible causes. It may be that expectations of trainees diverge as they fit in to the unique practice framework of their school (Ellis & Loughland, 2016). The culture developed by each school’s head teacher (Hammersley-Fletcher et al., 2015, p. 25) will play a key role in this. For example, a school which either subscribes to educational research journals on behalf of its staff team, or in which the dissemination of research is embedded into CPD practices would be well placed to support and enhance a new teacher’s research-mindedness (McBeath & Austin, 2015). A school community might actively engage in practitioner research, valuing new teachers with research skills and engaging them in professional enquiry groups, as recommended by Carter (2015), from the start of their careers. Trainees would therefore bring skills to the staff team which even some experienced teacher may lack. The growth in outstanding responses might then represent the trainees who understand the practical significance and potential impact of what they have learned. On the other hand a school community may dismiss research activity as irrelevant (Rudduck & Hopkins, 1985), or conflicting with school priorities (Ellis & Loughland, 2016). School leaders might be implementing new initiatives which absorb training time and resources, to the exclusion of practitioner research (Ellis & Loughland, 2016). Trainees may even encounter more deeply-set negative perceptions of school-based practitioner research, which might make them re-evaluate their research training entirely (McBeath & Austin, 2015). Another interpretation, based on the observations made by Hammersley-Fletcher et al. (2015), would relate to schools in which practitioner research is perceived to tightly align with a teachers’ existing duties. In cases where pupil data is systematically used to make judgements about the impact of teaching and learning, and this is the school’s perception of educational research, trainees might feel very well prepared. On the other hand, such trainees might struggle if required to design research studies using creative methodological approaches aimed at innovating practice (Cordingley 30 | P a g e Daniel J Ayres


& Bell, 2007). Then again, the comparative fall in percentages during the NQT year may be more to do with trainees simply grasping the complexity of the field of educational research, or realising that we can rarely be 100% certain about claims we make about the effectiveness of teaching and learning in the classroom. It may also be that the more self-efficacious trainees become aware of the limits of their knowledge and understanding, and perceive this as a lack of preparedness and a weakness of their ITT. The tentative nature of the propositions made above is intentional, since there are various reasons for considering these data sets to be unreliable. Firstly, despite the promise of anonymity, trainees during their programme may tailor or temper their responses in case they might be identified. They might also be influenced by the inherent power imbalance between them and the tutoring team posing the questions (a phenomenon particularly apparent in interview scenarios). Gorard (2015) also warns of methodological weaknesses in the NQT survey data, including gaps5 in available ITT provider data sets, and the 24% response rate for year 3, which make the data less reliable. The observations made about this perception data will be reconsidered during the following thematic analysis (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006). Responses to questions three to six of the questionnaire are particularly likely to reveal the nature of respondents’ engagement in and with research in school, and provide answers to the central research questions. Indeed it is by combining approaches and data, to seek deeper understandings, that allows legitimate conclusions to be drawn (Ayres, 2014b; Hamilton & Corbett-Whittier, 2013; Newby, 2010).

Questionnaire Responses The following analysis presents a critical discussion of the qualitative data collected through the online questionnaire sent to teachers across The Partnership. Out of 200 invitations emailed out, the questionnaire received a total of 44 respondents – a response rate of 22%. Data was retrieved from the online survey tool and codified by practitioner (P) and question (Q) (e.g. P1Q1, P1Q2, …),

5

Factors omitted include trainee withdrawal and failure rates (Gorard, 2015).



which allowed for efficient management of the 200 plus individual responses, and systematic interpretation. 20 respondents identified themselves as being in their initial year of teaching. Four head teachers identified themselves as such, but only two completed the entire survey. In fact eight out of the 44 – 18% of respondents – did not provide a full set of answers. This is possibly an example of participant fatigue predicted by Newby (2010), more common where open questions are utilised. This issue will be reflected on later, and will inform implications for my future research activity. The analysis began with question two, asking about the extent to which participants would describe themselves as a researcher. Responses, where specific professional roles were identified, are set out below, in table 1. With the exception of head teachers (who responded Not at all (P15Q2) and I’m not! (P13Q2)6), there would appear to be a fairly even spread in terms of range of perception. More teachers than not see themselves as researchers to some extent. However, consideration of the specific wording of responses indicates a more useful pattern. NQTs who indicated that they consider themselves as researchers to the greatest extent generally related their thinking to one of three areas: pupil progress, school ethos, or postgraduate study. See self as a researcher:

Not at all

Limited

Completely

NQT

40%

30%

30%

Teacher

40%

25%

35%

Head Teacher

100%

Professional Label

Table 1 Percentage responses, grouped by self-identified professional role. The tendency of teachers to align practitioner research with the collation and analysis of pupil data was highlighted by Hammersley-Fletcher et al. (2015), who suggested that this perception does not reflect the innovative potential of practitioner research. But the teachers have a point to make. As

6

Questionnaire responses are italicised and presented verbatim throughout.



one states, there exists an overlap between traditional action research cycles and the daily expectations of teachers to ensure every pupil makes progress: As teachers we research every day. Looking at a new activity to help pupil progress. Even looking at pupils work is researching (P18Q2) This is a strong argument, since the planning-teaching-assessment cycle is strongly aligned to action research (Ferrance, 2000): Teachers evaluate the outcomes of their teaching by questioning pupils and assess completed work. They might reflect on the effectiveness of their lesson planning and delivery, perhaps even making notes to inform future improvements. They then address gaps or weakness identified by their evaluations and reflections by planning future teaching, which might be delivered with a shifted focus or with renewed understanding of what strategies are having the best impact on pupil learning. Given that this hypothesis is also supported by an interpretation of the quantitative data, above, I expected to read responses confirming a perceived alignment between the planning-teachingassessment cycle and action research activity. Instead, the ethos in others’ schools appears such that practitioner research is more sophisticated, and that teachers are expected to explore the effectiveness of teaching approaches, underpinning their work with an exploration of research literature. P25, below, indicates that their school’s culture is therefore why they see themselves as a researcher: In the school I am currently in, we all carry out action research. So therefore I see myself as a researcher albeit more casual than someone attending a masters course (P25Q2) This would appear to indicate a school’s practice framework (Ellis & Loughland, 2016) embracing practitioner research. The response indicates that a research culture has been established in the school, and it is one which values teachers’ research capabilities, but that it is in some way less formal



than if the research were part of an academic programme. This view is shared explicitly by another respondent: I’m an ‘informal researcher’ researching when I want to find out something. Not as formal as what you do for a masters about evaluating and reflecting (P36Q2) The notion of levels of formality may also relate to the recording or publication of research findings, but this theme needs to be explored in more detail as the analysis continues. In order to ensure this is done, and in the spirit of flexibility embodied by Fereday and Muir-Cochrane’s (2006) hybrid approach to thematic analysis, the notion of ‘formality’ was recorded as a data-driven code label, with which to support analysis of the remaining questions. The data-driven codes and explanations established during analysis are recorded in Appendix G.

Thematic Analysis Having developed preliminary, theory-driven codes (Appendix C) following a critical review of related literature, the next step was to apply the codes to the data, and to allow additional inductive codes to emerge. It quickly became apparent, reading responses to question 3 – How would you define 'research'? – that the preliminary codes would not be easy to apply to participants’ answers. As might have been expected, responses describing definitions of research tended to straddle categories, or be phrased in ways which did not fully align with any particular category at all. Research indeed appears to be a ‘blanket term’ encompassing many and various activities (Ellis & Loughland, 2016, p. 122). The code label ‘commitment’ for example refers to ‘engagement in or with education research’ which respondents appear to consider as separate endeavours more often than not. The following two examples of responses refer to research as a process which could be related to more than one preliminary category. A study, examination, investigation or exploration of ‘something’ that allows you to draw some conclusions about that ‘something’ or establish some ‘facts’ or involvement that contribute to that ‘something’ and its development or revision (P17Q3) 34 | P a g e Daniel J Ayres


Reading and discussion to develop ideas and knowledge (P34Q3) New and noteworthy themes, apparently omitted by the preliminary codes, also quickly emerged. A number of respondents saw research activity as part of their professional role (reflecting the ‘commitment’ and ‘capacity’ codes) but described research as essentially preparedness for teaching a subject with which they might be unfamiliar, for example: Learning about a new topic you may need to teach sometime soon (P31Q3) When teaching a new topic, I would generally research about it (P7Q2); To enhance subject knowledge (P7Q5) While various sources (e.g. Carter, 2015; Munday, 2016; Hammersley-Fletcher et al., 2015) discuss engagement with research for the enhancement of practice, I had not expected this particular rather simplistic view of researching a topic to ensure secure subject knowledge. Fordham’s (2016) duel practitioner research categories – professional development, and the production of knowledge about good practice – do align, however, and allow for inductive categorisation of this theme. Some participants’ comment reflected both of Fordham’s (2016) categories, for example: Finding out how to do something better by gathering information about a specific subject via various means (P41Q3) Another, more sophisticated theme emerged as a number of respondents describing research as essentially the creation or generation of knowledge, for example: The creation of new knowledge (P19Q3) Reading and discussion to develop ideas and knowledge (P43Q3) Upon identifying these omissions from the preliminary codes, the labels ‘subject knowledge’, ‘professional development’, and ‘knowledge generation’ were added to the data-driven code set (Appendix F). That these three themes were explored in the literature review, all supported by 35 | P a g e Daniel J Ayres


Fordham’s (2016) work but not included in the preliminary code table, highlights the value of the flexibility inherent in the hybrid approach utilised by Fereday and Muir-Cochrane (2006). Continuing with the stage 2 analysis, there were occasional distinctions made between school-based research and that which might be generated by external researchers (Sheard & Sharples, 2016) or academics. The indication of a perceived distance between theory and practice (apparent in the following two responses) reflects McBeath & Austin (2015) and Mills’ (2014) concerns. Studies which use experiments and observations to investigate the relationship between variables and analysing data to find the significance (P12Q3) In an academic setting I would say that it is collect evidence empiracy and analyse it quantitively or qualitatitively (P11Q3) These views were exceptions amongst the data, however. Over half of participants (n=24) related research or theory explicitly and directly to the development of practice in their answers to Q3. These views indicate either an understanding of the benefits which practitioner research might present, an awareness of the value of engaging with research findings, or both (Carter, 2015; HoC, 2010; Holden, 2016; Hulse & Hulme, 2012). In fact, the coded responses to question 4 – What impact does research have on your professional role as an educator? – indicated that the majority of respondents believe that integrating ideas and findings from research has impact, is important, and either benefits or has the capacity to improve their practice. As a result of these responses a final code, labelled ‘consuming research’, was established. This finding also seemed to align with the theme of research-related values (included in question 6 of the questionnaire at the suggestion of the test group, see Appendix D). I took the stance that values are the moral principles by which professionals operate and decided to look past the preliminary themes for evidence of respondents’ values. The data revealed a willingness change and improve practice amongst the majority of respondents. 36 | P a g e Daniel J Ayres

This finding aligns well with both


Stenhouse’s (1975) notion of an extended professional and with McBeath & Austin’s (2015) researchminded practitioner, and suggests that we have a professional workforce well-placed to engage in practitioner research as an integral part of their role. Stage two of the analysis – reading data, applying codes and additional coding – continued by applying the preliminary codes to the remaining questions and looking for further inductive codes. The full and final set of data-driven codes can be seen in Appendix F. The final step was connecting codes and exploring themes (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006). Once the deductive and inductive processes had been completed the analysis continued by seeking ‘similarities and differences … indicating areas of consensus [and] areas of potential conflict’ (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006, p. 89). A striking pattern which emerged, indicating a potential conflict, was seen in answers to question 5 – What is the nature of your involvement in research? – particularly when considering the positive messages communicated by responses to the previous questions and the ‘willingness’ revealed above. Just over half of all respondents either stated or suggested that they had no current involvement in research. Since respondents had already indicated that they perceived consumption of research as distinct from engagement in research, I attributed this phenomenon to limited practitioner research activity in schools. This hypothesis was supported by a number of respondents, for example: During my psychology degree I would consider myself to have been a researcher as I conducted my own experiments based on memory and looked at other research to compare findings and identify gaps in research. However, as a teacher you only look at other peoples research and not your own (P12Q2) [Research is] a very important factor within education, as it informs the ways in which we deliver our lessons etc. (P38Q4) Since my dissertation, I have had no involvement in research, other than helping others rather evidence for their studies by completing surveys and answering interview questions 37 | P a g e Daniel J Ayres


(P38Q5) I do not really consider myself to be a researcher as I haven’t conducted any formal study since completing my pgce… (P38Q2) Respondent P38, identifying him or herself as an NQT, had developed and maintained an understanding that theory and research underpins current educational pedagogy in England. He or she had also been educated to postgraduate level, and gained the skills and capability to engage in practitioner research. However, expectations since gaining QTS had reduced his or her engagement in research to internet searches: …if I am [un]sure of something or need to understand something better, I tend to use the internet (P38Q2) This tendency, to lean on technology to fill-in gaps in knowledge or understanding, is articulated by other participants too. For example: My research is limited to researching ideas on twitter or Facebook (P2Q2) I know how to google!! (P13Q6) Existing notions of practitioner research may have underestimated or completely missed the impact that the World Wide Web and social media has had on professional development, pedagogy and practice in schools in recent years. The development of and access to online resources for educators might form the basis of valuable future research. It is likely that, if Carter’s (2015) recommendation of ‘a central portal of synthesised executive summaries’ (pp. 8-9) is implemented the impact will be evaluated. It may be however that such a resource base will develop teachers’ understanding of internet resources as legitimate, but informal research. The theme of research ‘formality’ demanded further scrutiny and code tags helped me identify two groups of responses. One group referred to levels of sophistication of research activity, from rigorous, well-constructed research (P27Q6) through to research implemented in a trial and error way (P5Q4). Formality was also referred to in a more abstract manner: 38 | P a g e Daniel J Ayres


I feel like I am constantly changing what I do because of formal and informal "research" (P31Q4) Looking for the best way to do things or more official/academic research (P39Q6) It would appear that what drives this tendency to classify research activity as more or less formal is an association with a programme of study or the attainment of academic credit. However my critique of literature suggested that notions of ‘formality’ may stem from research activity either with or by any external institutions (Lunt & Shaw, 2017; Sheard & Sharples, 2016). Without probing teachers’ perceptions on this specific subject further, speculation is as far as my exploration can take me. I anticipated that some of the most valuable responses would be prompted by question six since answers to this question would provide an insight into the research skills, attributes and values possessed by The Partnership’s teacher workforce. Four fifths of respondents’ answers reflected that they possessed research skills encompassed by the ‘capability’ code label. Respondents claimed to possess knowledge of research methods (P17Q6; P8Q6), the ability to analyse statistics (P9Q6; P28Q6), and awareness of principles of research ethics (P8Q6; P24Q6). Other respondents suggested that they possessed competent research skills, but were less specific, for example: …I have been trained quite rigorously in the art of research (P27Q6) Loads ;-) Mainly qualitative approaches to empirical research. Advanced literature searching and reviewing skills. Developing clear research proposals. qualitative data analysis skills, including use of CAQDAS (NVivo). I'm also skilled at participative research, use of visual and multimedia methods (P30Q6) Throughout the responses to question six were explicit references made to either the possession or use of analytic skills. This is perhaps to be expected as Carter (2015) observed and highlighted throughout his report that analytic skills underpinned effective teaching. However, the interpretive nature of the term ‘analysis’, and the number of teachers who see it as a relevant research attribute, 39 | P a g e Daniel J Ayres


may stand at odds and create conflict with the movement heralded by Goldacre’s (2013) call for more scientific approaches to school-based research. I began the final round of analysis by reviewing the data for research attributes described by respondents, using the ‘commitment’ and ‘curiosity’ code descriptions, and found eight answers which fit. P11, P17 and P21 stated a particular interest in supporting their own professional development through research, keeping themselves up to date (P21Q4) or on top of educational research (P11Q4) in order to effect changes and improvements to their classroom practices. What the codes did not pick up, possibly due to the wording of the questions asked, was the number of respondents who saw research as a professional duty.

Looking beyond the codes, several

respondents’ answers implied a commitment to professional development which included accessing and engaging with, and in, research. For example, P15 who found that she or he understood pupils more by studying their behaviour [and was] really helped in understanding autistic and other SEND students and how to teach them effectively (P15Q4) is likely to remain open and committed to learning about and improving their practice.

Limitations Before drawing the findings of this study together into conclusions which address the central research questions, time must be taken to ensure and to demonstrate my awareness of the limitations inherent in this study. This especially important given the qualitative aspects of data collection and analysis I adopted (Newby, 2010). In so doing I can ensure that my claims are made as confidently as possible, and that conclusions rest on a more secure foundation. On that note, given that the methodological approach, the definitions, sources, coding, analysis and interpretation of data were all selected and conducted by myself, my conclusions must reflect an appropriate amount of caution. Be that as it may, I should be prepared to defend the rigour and integrity with which I worked. The conclusions I do arrive at will be more than just speculation, and should be of interest to certain parties throughout The Partnership in which I work. 40 | P a g e Daniel J Ayres


Being that the study focussed squarely on teachers in the primary sector the findings cannot be said to represent a range of views of educators throughout England. There are likely to be distinct differences in the views shared and analysed here to perceptions of teachers in secondary, tertiary and higher education, whose subjects might involve forms of investigative work, such as geography, or the sciences, or whose job descriptions demand research output. Returning to the issue of response rate, the number of responses received, as acknowledged and discussed previously, was somewhat lower than expected. The participant target of 50, based on the figures required by the Hammersley-Fletcher et al. (2015) project, was not reached. This was compounded by an 18% participant fatigue apparent in the number of participants abandoning the survey by the last of the six questions posed. Given the remit of this work, however, the number of responses received is not as much of a problem as being unable to effectively identify their demographic characteristics. While conclusions might be confidently made about primary NQTs’ views of research in The Partnership (especially given the mix of qualitative and quantitative data collected and analysed about them) this study is unable to make links between teachers’ lengths of service, their ITT route into teaching, their gender, or the type of school they teach in, each of which may have contributed to differences in perception and provided more valuable insights. Finally, the nature of the project itself would have interested some invitees more than others. All conclusions I draw should therefore be tempered by the likelihood that they reflect the views of more research-minded teachers, who would be ‘more likely to have completed this survey than those with limited understanding of research’ (Hammersley-Fletcher et al., 2015, p. 25).



Conclusions This section summarises and reviews the work undertaken in this project, presents conclusions in relation to each of the research questions, and then sets out recommendations for practice in ITT and schools. The work concludes with a reflective critique of my own learning both in terms of the field of practitioner research and in relation to the design and implementation of this educational research project.

Summary This work set out to identify teacher-researcher competencies through critical consideration of literature on the subject and by exploring teachers’ perceptions of research and the nature of their engagement with it in school. Participants were primary NQTs and teachers within an established ITT network – The Partnership – in London. An exploratory case study (Creswell, 2005) approach was adopted which drew on qualitative and quantitative data to reveal findings about the realities of practitioner research. The study was driven by the following research questions: -

What research skills are required of teachers in their professional role? (Q1)

-

How do teachers use research skills developed during their training? (Q2a)

-

What is the nature of teachers’ engagement with research? (Q2b)

In order to establish the extent to which the aims of the project were met, each of the sub questions (Q2a & Q2b) will be discussed, and conclusions drawn and presented in answer to the central research question (Q1).

How do teachers use research skills developed during their training? (Q2a) This study found that teachers believe they either hold the necessary skills required to conduct practitioner research, or that they are aware of areas they would need to develop in order to conduct a systematic inquiry in their classroom. The study also established that teachers tend to possess a willingness to engage in practitioner research. They perceive what Lunt and Shaw (2017) confirm, that engaging in practitioner research has the power to develop their understanding of pedagogy and to inform improvements in their classroom practice. 42 | P a g e Daniel J Ayres


That being said, a significant proportion of teachers involved in this study either do not use or are not required to use their skills to engage in practitioner research. This suggests, with some exceptions, that there is no consistent expectation at primary schools in The Partnership that classroom teachers should conduct research activity as part of their professional role. It might also therefore be concluded that primary research skills are redundant unless a teacher follows an academic programme of study. Because there were exceptions and differences in the experiences described by respondents to this study it would be fair to say that their answer to Q2a depended both on each teacher’s local context and their perception of ‘research skills’. This would appear to confirm Fordham (2016) and Hamilton & Corbett-Whittier’s (2013) claims that the particular nature of practitioner research depends on a school’s culture and on its teachers’ tendency to align research activity with either professional knowledge development, CPD, or with more formal activity conducted with or by an external body (Lunt & Shaw, 2017).

What is the nature of teachers’ engagement with research? (Q2b) Echoing the nature of the response to the previous question, a significant proportion of teachers involved in this study reported no engagement in research activity at all. Three teachers indicated that they were required to employ a range of research skills as part of their postgraduate programmes of study. And one teacher reported conducting action research exploring effective approaches to the teaching of spelling; practitioner research was an expectation at the school in which they worked. There was no indication of any collaborative research undertaking between staff groups in schools, between different schools, or among schools in academy chains or teaching school alliances, a finding which contrasts starkly with Carter’s (2015) claim of a national growth in collaborative practitioner researcher. Nor was there any explicit research undertaking with external partners, such as



described by Lunt and Shaw’s (2017) type 1 research configuration, although a small number of respondents indicated that they had been participants in others’ research, for example: Since my dissertation, I have had no involvement in research, other than helping others [gather] evidence for their studies by completing surveys and answering interview questions (P38Q5) This study instead found that teachers’ research activity, as Fordham (2016) proposed, frequently related to accessing information for their ongoing professional development. Respondents reported various reasons for their engagement with research literature: to inform – confirm, refine or improve – lesson delivery; a perceived need to access alternative viewpoints, and; a way of tackling specific professional problems.

Teachers indicated that they felt well-prepared to analyse research

literature. There was a clear indication that teachers are prepared to assess the ‘robustness’ of research (as probed in the NQT surveys) and the validity of research findings, and are prepared to encounter and evaluate data in different forms and occurrences of bias in the literature. Some teachers demonstrated a different perception of research engagement for professional development, describing the nature of their activity in terms of securing subject knowledge ahead of lessons. While this activity is not a revelation, its alignment to practitioner research was unexpected. The finding indicates a possible shift in perceptions of research, possibly caused by the breadth and nature of information available via the internet and social media networks.

What research skills are required of teachers in their professional role? (Q1) Primary teachers in The Partnership engage in critical, reflective thinking about their work. They access, and are able to evaluate the findings of research literature, and they value the potential pedagogical benefits of research. Respondents also generally possessed a good range of practical research skills, an understanding of research methods, and experience engaging in research activity during their ITT. However this study has found that teachers’ research abilities were seldom put to good and proper use beyond their ITT.



Teachers undertaking postgraduate programmes of study, a master’s degree in education for example, actively engage in research and are required to deploy skills specifically associated with the design and implementation of educational research (see ‘capability’ in the thematic codes represented in Appendix C). Certainly, as the aims presented in Appendix A would indicate, postgraduate students are necessarily expected to conduct and evaluate research. However, research as part of academic study tends to be perceived by teachers as more formal, therefore possibly distinct from, school-based practitioner research. For example, one respondent described how although they saw themselves as a practitioner researcher, their approach was more casual than someone attending a masters course (P10Q2). Teachers’ perceptions of research are varied (Ellis & Loughland, 2016) such that they may consider using the internet, to search for and secure their subject knowledge, as research but not consider continual evaluation of their pupils’ progress as research activity. It would appear that there is also inconsistency between schools in the extent to which trainees’ research skills are utilised, once they enter the classroom. And while this study has found evidence of certain school leaders identifying and valuing teachers’ research skills, no evidence of these skills being further developed in school was found. Therefore it can be argued that a. opportunities are being missed, to enhance teaching and learning in schools and, b. ITT involving education research practices for intending teachers may be redundant.

Recommendations This study supports the consensus that teachers do need to be systematically taught how to access and interpret research, during ITT and beyond (e.g. Carter, 2015; Munday, 2016). There is a strong case for exposing trainees to ‘the most relevant and recent research’ (Munday, 2016, p. 16) while training them to be ‘critical consumers’ of research (Goldacre, 2013, p. 13; Hulme & Hulse, 2012) who have the evaluative skills to identify ‘evidence-supported resources’ (Munday, 2016, p. 16). ITT providers are attuned to provide such support, since postgraduate accreditation demands such 45 | P a g e Daniel J Ayres


criticality from students, but school-based training beyond ITT is lacking and must be developed – this study’s primary recommendation. Carter’s (2015) suggestion of a ‘central portal of synthesised executive summaries’ (Carter, 2015, p. 8) would serve as a valuable training resource for schools in this respect. However more consideration needs to be given to the role of school-based mentors expected to be the ‘good role-models [for trainees and NQTs] in relation to their own engagement with research’ (Carter, 2015, p. 41; Vetter, 2012). Expecting mentors to ‘enable the trainee to access, utilise and interpret robust educational research’ (Holden, 2016, p. 12) mistakenly assumes that they will all be able to effectively interpret educational research themselves, and use it to effectively inform their own practices (Ayres, 2014; DfE, 2016). University-based ITT providers must therefore be open and flexible in terms of their relationships with and between schools, including with school-based providers of ITT (Hulme & Hulse, 2012), and should ensure that this aspect of training is supported, as per Carter’s (2015) view of HEIs. The second recommendation of this project is therefore for the review and development of links with school leaders and their ITT and NQT mentors, to ensure support is offered for the academic competence described above. Along the same lines, collaborative research practices across The Partnership should be identified and explored, and effective arrangements disseminated to enable expertise to be shared. While my own university has an active practitioner research group there is currently no system in place for it to engage, track or support schools across The Partnership. A third recommendation therefore is that a policy for developing links with and between schools in The Partnership must be developed and implemented. Since teachers’ empirical research skills appear to be underutilised in schools, it might also be recommended, that the workforce is trained unnecessarily in this area, and that ITT curricula should be revised to omit it. However Hulse and Hulme (2012) suggest that practitioner research skills developed as part of professional training, promote a critical approach to pedagogy, and allow 46 | P a g e Daniel J Ayres


trainees to make meaningful links between theory and practice. Such training would also support the understanding of quantitative and qualitative research methods (Munday, 2016) required to successfully interrogate peer-reviewed educational research literature.

My research module

Managing Professional Change and Development: Active inquiry leading to classroom intervention still has an important part to play in postgraduate ITT at my university.

Thus, the fourth

recommendation based on the findings of this study is that research skills should continue to form an integral part of ITT curricula and of postgraduate training programmes offered to qualified teaching staff.

My learning This final, reflective section describes and explores the implications of my own professional learning from undertaking this project, in terms of my future research engagement, and my leadership and development of research modules across The Partnership.

This work has developed my

understanding of practitioner research, research methodology, including ethical considerations, and survey design and delivery. I will commence by reflecting on my use of the hybrid thematic approach adopted, given the key role it played in data analysis and interpretation. My exploration of Fereday and Muir-Cochrane’s (2006) hybrid thematic approach to analysis was highly valuable for me. Despite the fact that I had utilised and written about mixed-methodological approaches for educational research before this work developed my understanding of how qualitative and quantitative data sets might be effectively synthesised. The coding process was somewhat familiar to me, since I had used mixed inductive-deductive codes to interpret data in a previous project7 however the amount of data units I had to work with demanded greater management and time, which caused me at various times to experience ‘frustration, confusion and

7

Preliminary codes were developed from work with Shulman’s (2005, cited in Ayres, 2014) notions of signature pedagogy, and his suggested ‘pedagogical structures’ (p. 13) of ITT.



self-doubt’ (Marshall, 2002, in Newby, 2010, p. 465). It would be useful to apply the approach again in the coming academic year, to secure my understanding of its implementation and effectiveness. Before undertaking further survey research, however, I need to give more thought to design and trialling. Although the proposed questionnaire was presented to two trial groups, and feedback explicitly requested (Newby, 2010), weaknesses remained (e.g. the limited demographic information gathered). I specifically kept the questionnaire as simple as possible so that, a. I would be able to spot and avoid such pitfalls and, b. to avoid participant fatigue (Newby, 2010) and help ensure a healthy response rate. Despite my consideration, both the response rate (22%) and the proportion of participants completing the entire questionnaire (82%), could have been higher. Whilst I expected a limited engagement rate I failed to gain the 50 responses I had established would make for more reliable conclusions about teachers in The Partnership. Indeed where Hammersley-Fletcher et al. (2015) identified a teaching school in their research which failed to meet this requirement it was excluded from the study. As part of participant recruitment, I have learned, an agreement to participate should be established prior to receipt of surveys or questionnaires (and incentives and rewards might be offered, to incentivise engagement), and a systematic follow-up strategy, reminding participants of their agreement, would help to ensure desired response rates. The number of respondents apparently abandoning this study’s questionnaire before the end flags up other important lessons which I must learn prior to planning further research involving survey instruments. Having anticipated some level of participant lethargy I perhaps should not have included a most significant question to the end. The introduction to the questionnaire and the information supplied with invitations could have better-prepared participants for what to expect. I have successfully conducted research interviews for which participants are made aware of the questions which they would be asked beforehand. Depending on the nature of the project, this might also work for online questionnaires. 48 | P a g e Daniel J Ayres


There is another, highly valuable lesson I learnt from the response rate I received. McBeath and Austin (2015) explicitly warn about exploring potentially contested areas of professionalism and the need for sensitivity in order to conduct effective and ethical research: [Practitioner research] may in some organizational settings be hidden from overt view by practitioners who disapprove of academic research and/or may not be comfortable discussing their research activities. (McBeath & Austin, 2015, pp. 452-453) In the case of this study, the potentially sensitive nature of the topic should have had a greater bearing on research design and activity. My familiarity with the topic, due to my ongoing work with research due to me professional role, precipitated assumptions about its suitability for study. Should I have developed a more thorough knowledge of relevant literature at the very start of the project I would have considered and address the sensitivities which I otherwise did not anticipate. To conclude, conducting this project has revealed a need to take a more broad and flexible viewpoint of the value of master’s level study for teachers, given school-specific contextual factors, demands, and individuals’ professional development needs, priorities, perceptions and professional identities. In order to develop this work, and in line with recommendation three, above, I am determined to engage the local practitioner research group to help me to forge closer links with schools in The Partnership, and to help establish and mobilise the resources available throughout the university to support them. Word Count: 14,834.



References Ayres, D. (2014a) ‘The Role of Practical Experience: toward an ITE signature pedagogy’, Research in Teacher Education, 4 (1), pp. 10-16. Ayres, D. (2014b) Defining Case Study Research. Available at: http://danieljayres.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/defining-case-study-research.html (Accessed: July 2017). BERA (2011) Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research. London: BERA. Available at https://www.bera.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/BERA-Ethical-Guidelines-2011.pdf (Accessed: December 2014). BERA-RSA (2014) The Role of Research in Teacher Education: Reviewing the evidence. London: BERA-RSA. Available at: https://www.bera.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/BERA-RSA-InterimReport.pdf (Accessed: June 2017). Bromley, D.B. (1986) The Case-Study Method in Psychology and Related Disciplines. Chichester: John Wiley. Carter, A. (2015) Carter review of initial teacher training (ITT). DfE. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/carter-review-of-initial-teacher-training (Accessed: August 2017). Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2011) Research Methods in Education. (7th edn.) Oxon: Routledge. Coleman, M and Briggs, A (eds) (2002) Research Methods in Educational Leadership and Management. London: Paul Chapman. Cordingley, P. (2013) The Contribution of Research to Teachers’ Continuing Professional Learning and Development. London: BERA. Cordingley, P. and Bell, M. (2007) Transferring learning and taking innovation to scale. CUREE. Available at: http://www.curee.co.uk/files/publication/1236960866/Transferring%20learning%20and%20taking %20innovation%20to%20scale%20-%20think%20piece.pdf (Accessed: August 2017). Creswell, J. (2005) Educational Research (2nd edn.) New Jersey: Pearson. Davies, P., Hamilton, M. & James, K. (2007) Maximising the impact of practitioner research: A handbook of practical advice. London: National Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy (NRDC). Available at: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/22282/1/doc_3843.pdf (Accessed: August 2017). Department for Education (DfE) (2010) The Importance of Teaching: The Schools White Paper 2010. Norwich: The Stationery Office. Department for Education (DfE) (2013a) Analytical Review: The Department (By Steering Group) Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/193911/000472013PDF-EN-01.pdf (Accessed: July 2017). Department for Education (DfE) (2013b) Analytical Review: Executive Summary. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/193910/000472013PDF-EN-03.pdf (Accessed: July 2017).



Department for Education (DfE) (2013c) Department’s response to the Analytical Review. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/193915/Depart ment_AR_response1.1.pdf (Accessed: July 2017). Department for Education (DfE) (2013d) Research Priorities and Questions: Teachers and Teaching. Available at: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/17789/1/Research_priorities_and_questions__teachers_and_teaching.pdf (Accessed: August 2017). Ellis, N. and Loughland, T. (2016) ‘The Challenges of Practitioner Research: A Comparative Study of Singapore and NSW’, Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(2), pp. 122-136. Enthoven, M. and de Bruijn, E. (2010) ‘Beyond locality: the creation of public practice-based knowledge through practitioner research in professional learning communities and communities of practice. A review of three books on practitioner research and professional communities’, Educational Action Research, 18(2), pp. 289–298. Fereday, J. and Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006) ‘Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic Analysis: A Hybrid Approach of Inductive and Deductive Coding and Theme Development’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), pp. 80-92. Ferrance, E (2000) Action Research. Providence: Brown University. Fordham, M. (2016) ‘Stenhouse’s vision of teacher research’, British Educational Research Journal,good 42(1), pp. 135-150. Goldacre, B. (2013) Building Evidence into Education. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/193913/Building _evidence_into_education.pdf (Accessed: July 2017). Gorard, S. (2015) Newly Qualified Teachers 2015: An investigation of attitudes in terms of route and context. NCTL. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/477212/NQT_inv estigation_of_attitudes_in_terms_of_route_and_context.pdf (Accessed: July 2017). Gray, D.E. (2004) Doing Research in the Real World. London: Sage. Great Britain. Academies Act 2010: Elizabeth II. Chapter 32 (2010) London: The Stationery Office. Great Britain. Education Reform Act 1988: Elizabeth II. Chapter 40 (1988) London: The Stationery Office. Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons (HoC) Children, Schools and Families Select Committee. (2010) Training of teachers. London: The Stationery Office. Hamilton, L. and Corbett-Whittier, C. (2013) Using Case Study in Education Research. London: BERA; Sage. Hamilton, M., Davies, P. & James, K. (2007) Practitioners leading research. London: National Research and Development Centre. Hammersley-Fletcher, L., Lewin, C., Davies, C., Duggan, J., Rowley, H. & Spink, E. (2015) Evidencebased teaching: advancing capability and capacity for enquiry in schools. NCTL. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/464596/EBT_Int erim_report_FINAL.pdf (Accessed: July 2017). Hargreaves, D. (1996) ‘Teaching as a research-based profession: possibilities and prospects’, Teacher Training Agency Annual Lecture, April. Available at: 51 | P a g e Daniel J Ayres


http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Portals/0/PDF%20reviews%20and%20summaries/TTA%20Hargreaves%2 0lecture.pdf (Accessed: June 2017). Holden, G. (2016) National Standards for school-based initial teacher training (ITT) mentors. DfE. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/536891/Mentor _standards_report_Final.pdf (Accessed: July 2017). Hughan, C. (2012) Teaching Schools. HTLC. Available at: http://www3.hants.gov.uk/cgf120312_item8paper1.pdf (Accessed: July 2017) Hulse, B. and Hulme, R. (2012) ‘Engaging with research through practitioner enquiry', Educational Action Research, 20(2), pp. 313-329. Lunt, N. & Shaw, I. (2017) ‘Good Practice in the Conduct and Reporting of Practitioner Research: Reflections from Social Work And Social Care’, Practice, 29(3), pp. 201-218. McBeath, B. & Austin, M. J. (2015) ‘The Organizational Context of Research-Minded Practitioners: Challenges and Opportunities’, Research on Social Work Practice, 25(4), pp. 446-459. McGrath, J. & Coles, A. (2013) Your Education Research Project Companion. (2nd edn.) Harlow: Pearson. Mills, G. (2014) Action Research: A guide for the teacher researcher. Pearson. Munday, S. (2016) A framework of core content for initial teacher training. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/536890/Framew ork_Report_11_July_2016_Final.pdf (Accessed: July 17). National College for Teaching and Leadership (NCTL) (2015) Newly Qualified Teachers: Annual Survey 2015 Research report. NCTL. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/477461/Newly_ Qualified_Teachers_Annual_Survey_2015.pdf (Accessed: July 2017). Newby, P. (2010) Research Methods for Education. Harlow: Pearson. Rudduck, J. & Hopkins, D. (1985) Research as a basis for teaching. London: Heinemann Educational Books. Sheard, M. K. & Sharples, J. (2016) ‘School leaders’ engagement with the concept of evidencebased practice as a management tool for school improvement’, Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 44(4), pp. 668-687. Singapore Statement on Research Integrity (2010) Available at: http://www.singaporestatement.org (Accessed: June 2017). Stenhouse, L. (1975) An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London: Heinemann. Urmson, J.O. and Ree, J. (1991) Western Philosophy and Philosophers. London: Unwin Hyman. Vetter, A. (2012) ‘Teachers as Architects of Transformation: The Change Process of an ElementarySchool Teacher in a Practitioner Research Group’, Teacher Education Quarterly, Winter, pp. 27-49. Walliman, N. (2006) Social Research Methods. London: Sage.



Appendices Appendix A – Module Aims and Learning Outcomes The main aims of the module are for students to: -

carry out research relating to learning and teaching and, in response, identify an appropriate intervention or change in classroom practice;

-

investigate the impact of such an intervention or change;

-

develop knowledge and understanding of critical thinking, reflective practice and educational research;

-

develop trainees’ knowledge of pedagogy, through primary research and critical evaluation of theory and literature;

-

identify priorities for early professional development through educational research and scholarship.

The module’s learning outcomes are categorised as knowledge, thinking skills, and practical skills, requiring students to: Knowledge 1. Demonstrate a systematic understanding and a critical awareness of issues relating to effective and reflective practice, educational research, and the management of professional development. Thinking skills 2. Critically reflect on their professional values, concerns, priorities and actions, and understand them in broader social, political and economic contexts; 3. Critically evaluate current educational research; Subject-based practical skills / Skills for work (general skills) 4. Use educational research to inform the development of pedagogy & practice; 5. Demonstrate a capacity to direct and sustain their continuing professional development.



Appendix B – Record of Definitions Research-related terms from literature (including indicative source/s): Action learning (Ellis & Loughland, 2016) Action Research (Ellis & Loughland, 2016) Active Inquiry Classroom Inquiry/Enquiry Classroom-based research (Carter, 2015) Collaborative enquiry (BERA-RSA, 2014) Enquiry-oriented Teaching/Practice/Learning (Cordingley, 2013; BERA-RSA, 2014) Evidence-based Teaching/Practice (Carter, 2015; Hammersley-Fletcher et al., 2015; Sheard & Sharples, 2016) Evidence-informed Teaching/Practice (HoC, 2010) Experimental testing (Vetter, 2012) Extended professional (Stenhouse, 1975) Knowledge maker (Fielding et al., 2009, cited in McBeath & Austin, 2015) Knowledge Producer/Consumer (Fordham, 2016) Lesson Study (Carter, 2015) Practitioner Inquiry/Enquiry (Hulse & Hulme, 2012; Ellis & Loughland, 2016) Practitioner-led/-informed research (Hamilton et al., 2007; Lunt & Shaw, 2017) Practitioner/Practice Research (Davies et al., 2007; McBeath & Austin, 2015; Ellis & Loughland, 2016; Hamilton et al., 2007; Hamilton & Whittier, 2013; Lunt & Shaw, 2017; Vetter, 2012; ) Problem-based inquiry (Ellis & Loughland, 2016) Professional Enquiry (McMahon et al., 2011; Carter, 2015) Reflective Practice (Fordham, 2016) Research-based teaching (Stenhouse, 1975) Research-informed clinical practice (BERA-RSA, 2014) Teacher-research (Ellis & Loughland, 2016) Systematic Inquiry (Stenhouse, 1975)



Appendix C – Preliminary Coded Themes Coded teacher-researcher competencies, from the critical review of literature. Code label

Summary descriptive definition of the code label.

Sources (for e.g.)

Commitment

A commitment to reflective self-development;

Lunt & Shaw, 2017

Seeing engagement in or with education research

Stenhouse, 1975

as a professional duty. Collaboration

Studying and engagement in critical discussion of

Ellis & Loughland, 2016

practices with colleagues.

Stenhouse, 1975 Vetter, 2012

Capability

Curiosity

Possessing research skills through experience or

BERA-RSA, 2014

training in planning and conducting research

DfE, 2015

(e.g. the ability to identify and articulate problems

Hammersley-Fletcher et

and research questions; an awareness of sampling

al., 2015

approaches, and data collection and analysis

Lunt & Shaw, 2017

strategies; ability to read and interpret findings,

McBeath & Austin, 2015

and evaluate the robustness of sources).

Stenhouse, 1975

A research-mindedness, concern or a tendency to

BERA-RSA, 2014

test theories or question practices.

Lunt & Shaw, 2017

An interest in existing research literature.

McBeath & Austin, 2015 Stenhouse, 1975

Capacity

The resources to engage in or with research, as

BERA-RSA, 2014

part of professional role (e.g. access to research

Ellis & Loughland, 2016

literature, the time to engage with and in research,

McBeath & Austin, 2015

tailored support).

Munday, 2016



Appendix D – The Questionnaire The questions, with a summary explanation and rationale for each. Question

Explanation

Q1. Which of the following

A closed question, but with some flexibility, allowing

labels best describe your

respondents to self-identify with the roles they may perceive

professional role? (You may

themselves to hold. This was to enable exploration of variances

select multiple labels.)

in demographics should this be required.

Options provided: Trainee, NQT, Teacher, Head Teacher

Q2. To what extent would

A potentially closed question, opened to allow leeway (Newby,

you describe yourself as a

2010); flexible, considered responses in terms of respondents’

researcher?

‘research-mindedness’ (McBeath & Austin, 2015). Able to contrast with selection of labels in Q1 and with level of competence implied by answers to Q6.

Q3. How would you define

A question inviting interpretation of the word ‘research’, with

'research'?

the idea of a. considering the range of perceptions and interpretations held throughout The Partnership, b. being able to identify participants as either consumers or creators of research and, c. expose general perceptions of the word, which may relate to the following questions.

Q4. What impact does

An open question, inviting self-evaluative consideration for

research have on your

either the use or generation of research and, by the use of

professional role as an

‘impact’, its perceived value.

educator? Q5. What is the nature of

Prompting respondents to reflect on and consider how they

your involvement in

engage with research or in research activity. An option here was

research?

to include specific wording of the NQT survey questions, but omitted a. allowing respondents’ own words to emerge, b. to avoid leading and, c. some of the wording of the NQT survey questions confused the focus group. Responses however could be compared to NQT survey questions.



Q6. What research skills,

A final question, homing in on the central research question, but

attributes and/or values do

seeking to establish not what respondents believe are required

you possess?

but that which they possess. Wording in this way allows the data to be contrasted – comparing individuals’ responses to this question to the previous questions for the identification of patterns and anomalies, and ‘areas of consensus [and] potential conflict’ (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006, p. 89). The inclusion of attributes and values (suggested by peers, when testing the questions) acknowledges that practitioner research relies on more than a skill set (McBeath & Austin, 2015; McMahon et al., 2011).



Appendix E – Participant Information Sheet [CONTACT DETAILS REMOVED] Project Title What Use Is Research? Primary School Teachers’ Experience of Practitioner Research Consent to Participate in a Research Study The purpose of this letter is to provide you with the information that you need to consider in deciding whether to participate in this study. Purpose Statement The researcher wishes to explore teachers’ perceptions of and engagement with research in school, and its impact on their practice. Views will be collected via an online questionnaire. The information collected will help to identify the impact of research with a view to informing recommendations and improvements to initial teacher training programmes. Confidentiality of the Data Only the lead researcher will see the full information given. Any information that is provided and that could be detrimental or damaging to individuals will not be made public in any form that could reveal their identity to a party beyond the researcher. The outcomes of this project may form part of a master’s dissertation, may be presented at conferences or reported in academic journals. Participants will not be named in final reports. Information will be kept secure with access gained only through passwords known to the researcher. Once the research has been completed and written up, data and information will be destroyed securely, within 6 months. All research will be conducted in line with the British Educational Association’s (BERA 2011) guidance on conducting research (Available at: https://www.bera.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/BERA-EthicalGuidelines-2011.pdf) Disclaimer You are not obliged to take part in this study, and are free to withdraw at any time. Should you choose to withdraw from the programme you may do so without disadvantage to yourself and without any obligation to give a reason. University [XXX] If you have any queries regarding the conduct of the programme in which you are being asked to participate, please contact [XXX]



Appendix F – Data-driven Coded Themes Data-driven, inductive codes developed from initial readings of the qualitative data. Data-driven

Explanation of code

Example response/s

Teachers perceive practitioner

… more casual than someone

research as less formal than that

attending a masters course;

code label Formality

associated with academic study. Subject

Teacher aligns research activity to

…developing subject knowledge prior

Knowledge

ensuring secure knowledge of a

to teaching a topic;

subject to be taught. Professional

Research is seen as a vehicle for

Development ensuring ongoing improvements to teaching practice.

Analysing practice, for improvement; Drawing conclusions from research activity … guiding practice; Considering developments; …stay on top of educational research and integrate it into my practice;

Knowledge Generation

A primary purpose of research is to

Finding answers / [something] out;

gain new knowledge.

Creating / developing / generating knowledge; Exploring the world;

Consuming

Engaging with research literature, to

Ability to synthesise literature;

Research

maintain up-to-date theoretical

…it is really important to look at

awareness.

different sources;



Appendix G – Research Integrity Training Certificate Completion of research ethics modules (Oct 2015)



Appendix H – Trainee Perception Data

How good was your training in preparing you to access educational research in your teaching practice? Satisfactory

12%

14%

53%

59%

Good

17%

19%

14%

42%

48%

57%

26%

23%

27%

25%

32%

Spring Y1

Summer Yr1

NQT Yr1

Very Good

27%

18%

53%

64%

15%

13%

17%

33%

51% 39% 28%

22%

Spring Year 2 Summer Year NQT Year 2 Spring Year 3 Summer Year NQT Year 3 2 3

How good was your training in preparing you to assess the robustness of your educational research? Satisfactory

9% 44%

10%

53%

13% 48%

Good

Very Good

13% 20%

8% 39%

57% 53%

37% 1

33%

32%

36%

2

3

4

27% 5

15%

18% 33%

54%

45% 33%

17%

23%

6

7

32% 8

22% 9

How good was your training in preparing you to understand and apply the findings from your educational research? Satisfactory

7% 48%

9%

54%

16%

48%

7% 38%

Good

Very Good

12% 25% 55% 43%

38%

34%

32%

1

2

3


42%

4

15%

19%

50%

49%

28%

39%

29%

22%

25%

28%

28%

5

6

7

8

9



Primary School Teachers' Experience of School

Primary School Teachers' Experience of School

Suggest Documents

Prospective Primary School Teachers

experiences of primary school teachers

Exploring Primary School Teachers' Conceptions of ... - Eric

Perception of Public Primary School Teachers

ATTITUDE OF PRIMARY SCHOOL MATHEMATICS TEACHERS ...

Requirements for Teachers with Private School Experience

Enhancing Practicing Primary School Teachers ... - Springer Link

Primary School Teachers' Comfortability with ... - Sciedu Press

Empirical Study on Primary School Teachers ...

the relationship between primary school teachers extrinsic

Pre-Service Primary School Teachers' Spatial Abilities

Primary school student teachers' views about ... - Naturfagsenteret

Non-music specialist trainee primary school teachers

Prospective Primary School Teachers' Attitudes Towards Teaching

Pre-service primary school teachers' preference ... - ScienceDirect.com

Prospective Science and Primary School Teachers ... - ScienceDirect

Enhancing Practicing Primary School Teachers ... - Springer Link

pre-service primary school teachers ... - Academic Journals

Expelling Stress for Primary School Teachers: Self

Primary school student teachers' views about ... - Naturfagsenteret

Primary School Teachers' Resilience during the

Investigating Primary School Teachers' Perception about Democracy ...

Brazilian primary school teachers' knowledge ... - Semantic Scholar

Changing Pre-service Primary-school Teachers ... - CyberLeninka