Teachers’ experiences of engagement with and in educational research: what can be learned from teachers’ views?

Abstract

In this paper, we explore what is known about teachers' engagement in and with educational research with a special emphasis on teachers' voice evoking their experience of participating in research. This will draw upon international contexts in order to suggest ways of utilising the benefits of research in practice. Our review is framed around five key themes between which there are interesting links. The first theme is purpose and consequence, which highlights the dimensions of teachers' control and autonomy. This is related to the second theme-teachers' learning and affective response. The third theme, agency, addresses the contextual factors influencing teachers' experience of research, which opens up the fourth theme concerning the degree of trust and collaboration that is experienced by teacher researchers. The final theme is contradiction. This phenomenon is understood in the context of socio-cultural theory in that the teacher researcher is evolving practice and questioning the focus on aggregate examination results/targets and its associated technology. While the available evidence of teachers' experience of research is overwhelmingly positive, providing an acceleration of professional understanding and new perspectives, which re-invigorates those teachers who do engage, it is not always experienced as such. Overall, we underline the importance of dialogic approaches and ecological agency, which relate to teachers' multi-dimensional perceptions of and participation in research.

Inquiring about Inquiry: A Research Journey

“…In addition, they developed and demonstrated a reflective stance that allowed them to reflect on their practice retrospectively. In this manner, each candidate was able to demonstrate their ability to reflect critically on her teaching and consider how to improve it (Leat et al, 2015;Truxaw et al, 2011) and additionally to discuss the benefits of their participation in inquiry for their students.…”

“…Teacher inquiry is also a powerful tool for professional development of practicing teachers when used as one part of a comprehensive approach to professional development. Findings gleaned from teacher inquiry can be used to inform school-based or district-wide curriculum development and guide school change initiatives (Leat, Reid, & Lofthouse, 2015). Vaughan and Burnaford (2016) conducted a comprehensive review of the literature to better understand how inquiry benefited inservice practitioners.…”

Commentary: So was it worth it? A commentary on Fricke et al. and Hagen et al. (2017)

“…These studies are examples of a (re)turn in recent years to evidence‐based ‘what works’ research in education in England, aiming to develop effective educational interventions for ‘real life’ classroom contexts. Leat, Reid, and Lofthouse () contributed to an enquiry commissioned by the British Educational Research Association (BERA) and the Royal Society for the Encouragement of the Arts, Manufacturing and Commerce (RSA) into school research and noted both an increase in examples of ‘what works’ approaches and their relationship with a comparative school improvement agenda in England:

… school improvement ‐ has evolved in conjunction with a political desire for evidence‐based practice with a focus on [pupil] outcomes. Given increased emphasis on accountability, it seems likely that [this] last mentioned purpose has increased in importance.

…”

“…As a result the most prominent face of educational research involving teachers is the school effectiveness paradigm ‐ related to the aphorism ‘what works’. This is reflected in the popularity of meta‐analyses of evidence relating to the impact of interventions on [pupil] outcomes .(Leat et al., ; 272)…”

“…However, unlike medicine and psychology, ‘what works’ approaches to accumulating evidence have not been universally accepted within UK education, perhaps due to the links with hard‐headed school improvement policies identified by Leat et al. (). Indeed, Connolly () suggests an underlying philosophical resistance to and fundamental mistrust of ‘what works’ research amongst some educationalists, where those who oppose ‘what works’ research suggest than in contrast to practitioner research, ‘what works’ research is against practitioners; undermines professional autonomy using large‐scale surveys, randomized‐controlled trials, and quantitative analyses; and is oppressive, dictatorial, descriptive and theoretically naïve, stifling reflective practitioner practice.…”