1
Evidence, enquiry and evaluation lie at the heart of what it means to be both a teacher and teacher educator. Research contributes not just to the professional development of teacher educators, but to the knowledge of the profession and to teaching and learning in general (Loughran, 2014; Willemse & Boei, 2017; Murray et al., 2019). This point is powerfully made in the foreword to the BERA-RSA Inquiry into Research and Teacher Education:
Research and enquiry has a major contribution to make to effective teacher education in a whole variety of different ways; it also contributes to the quality of students’ learning in the classroom and beyond. Teachers and students thrive in the kind of settings that we describe as research-rich, and research-rich schools and colleges are those that are likely to have the greatest capacity for self-evaluation and self-improvement.
(BERA, 2014, p. 3)
However, many school-based teacher educators (SBTE s) not only struggle to see themselves as teacher educators but, depending on their trajectory within the teaching profession, find they are ill-equipped to carry out research. Those that do engage in research are often confronted by institutional values that are unsympathetic to those seeking to pursue professional learning opportunities through involvement in research. This relative isolation can exacerbate an already challenging employment context, requiring SBTE s to juggle the competing demands of teaching, mentoring and administration (Vanderlinde et al., 2021; Czerniawski et al., 2019). Drawing on the largest international study on the professional learning needs of SBTE s, this chapter explores some of the research-related challenges they face in becoming teacher educators. The chapter begins by casting a spotlight on the relationship between research-based knowledge and scholarship and examining how both can inform the professional learning and practice of teacher educators. A description of the research design for the study is followed by a summary of the findings for six of the participating countries (Austria, England, Israel, the Netherlands, Portugal and Scotland). The findings are presented and discussed in the context of SBTE s’ academic interests, the professional learning activities SBTE s value with regard to those interests and the factors that affect their participation in such activities. While the qualitative data collected as part of the study will not be presented in this chapter, it will be alluded to in the discussion. The findings emphasise how much more needs to be done to recognise, address
2 Literature Review
In what has been described as a ‘pendulum swing’ away from the dominance of Higher Education Institutions (HEI s) towards a greater role for schools and teachers in the training of early-career teachers (Murray & Mutton, 2016; Mutton et al., 2017; White & Swennen, 2021), increasing attention is being paid to the shift in policy, internationally, towards more school-based teacher education models (Boyd & Tibke, 2012; Lunenberg et al., 2014; White, 2017). However, there is little evidence that this shift is leading to a rise in commensurate and dedicated professional learning opportunities for school-based teacher educators (i.e. relating specifically to their role as teacher educators). One aspect of the role of teacher educators working in universities, or to use Murray and Male’s (2005) term ‘second-order practitioners’, is the expectation that they will engage in research. There is a growing body of literature that stresses the importance of such second order practitioners as researchers (BERA, 2014; Loughran, 2014; Keltchtermans et al., 2017). The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) defines a researcher as:
Professionals engaged in the conception or creation of new knowledge. They conduct research and improve or develop concepts, theories, models, techniques instrumentation, software or operational methods.
(OECD, 2015)
However, little academic attention has been given to teacher educators working in schools (i.e. as both first- and second-order practitioners), the extent to which they can and should engage in research and the implications such engagement might have for their professional learning. As the next section indicates, that lack of attention must be addressed.
2.1 SBTE s as Researchers
While research plays an important role in the work of teacher educators, the dual identity of SBTE s (being both teachers and teacher educators) adds complexity when it comes to understanding the sorts of professional activities that are of most value to them (White & Timmermans, 2021; Smith & Flores, 2019). That complexity is exacerbated by the troubled history that has dogged
There is an urgent need to analyse the structures that govern the production and distribution of research knowledge and the right to engage in research acts. Teacher research is, at one level, a means of countering the hegemony of academic research which teachers are often distanced by.
(Rudduck 1987, p. 5 – cited in Hammersley 1993, p. 434)
And yet there is a significant international tradition of championing teachers as researchers; this includes many powerful voices. ‘Classroom inquiry’, ‘action research’, ‘close-to-practice research’ and ‘teacher research’ are just some of the terms that have been used over the last seventy years to describe, in different ways, school-based research by teachers (Rudduck, 1987; Hammersley, 1993; Wyse et al., 2018). Early advocates of this type of research activity include Corey (1949) in the United States, described by Hammersley as “one of its most influential advocates” (Hammersley, 1993, p. 425) and Stenhouse (1975) in the UK who championed practitioner research as an invaluable mechanism to improve teaching and learning. Most teacher educators working in universities, many of whom are ex-teachers, do engage with research in one way or another, formally and/or informally, when planning and preparing teaching, presentations, reports and publications. Their reading includes almost any form of publication that is informed by research (e.g. journal articles, textbooks, blogs, policy documents). This preparatory scholarly activity can be identified as ‘research’, albeit research with a small ‘r’ (Murray et al., 2014). Akin to Boyer’s (1990) notion of the ‘scholarship of teaching’, this type of research can take the form of reading to inform (and hopefully enhance) personal and professional practice and, as such, is an activity undertaken by most teachers in schools as part of their daily professional practice. But as ‘smart consumers’ of research, teacher educators, Cochran-Smith (2005) argues, need to do more than just critically read and understand the epistemological background of research articles and reports. In addition to this scholarly approach, they also need to be capable of conducting research into their own practices and programmes:
taking our own professional work as educators as a research site and learning by systematically investigating our own practice and interpretive frameworks in ways that are critical, rigorous, and intended to generate both local knowledge and knowledge that is useful in more public spheres.
(Cochran-Smith, 2005, p. 220)
However, in their transition to becoming second-order practitioners (teaching about teaching), SBTE s can often find themselves working alongside university colleagues whose first-order experience is likely to be in research i.e. working with colleagues with subject expertise within or outside education e.g. sociology and psychology (Smith, 2015). As they try out new and emerging values born of the experience of being teachers, teacher educators and novice researchers, their polyvalent role informs and enriches their professional learning, both formally and informally. Willemse and Boei’s (2017) third and final focus is the extent to which dedicated structured support is available to foster teacher educators’ professional development with regard to research (including the existence of a clearly defined research culture within the school). In some cases, the structures do exist e.g. the emergence of new research related job roles in schools (e.g. Research Leads and Research Advocates in England) and the rise of grass roots teacher-led organisations (e.g. ResearchED). But the existence of such structures in turn raises important questions around the purpose of educational research and who, why, how, when and for whom it is carried out.
The current study aims to explore SBTE s’ attitudes and involvement in research, the types of research-related professional learning activities they value, how they view their school’s attitudes towards research, and the effects of different contextual variables on their decision to participate in professional learning activities against the background of national policies.
3
This is an exploratory study drawn from a wider project. It presents analysis of the results of a quantitative multi-national survey against the background of teacher education policies and practices in six of the twenty participating countries namely Austria, England, Israel, the Netherlands, Portugal and Scotland. For the purposes of this chapter the Research Questions are:
What role does research play in SBTE s’ professional development?
To what extent do SBTE s value research in their professional development?
3.1 Participants
1680 SBTE s from twenty countries took part in this survey: 1075 (75.9%) female and 341 male (264 participants did not identify their gender). This chapter focuses on just 934 participants from the six countries mentioned above. The median age group was 45–54 years old, and that was also the most frequent age category, comprising 36% of the sample. Half of the participants had a Master’s degree, 39.4% had a Bachelor’s degree, 8.4% had a PhD, and 2.1% did not have an academic degree. About half the participants (48.9%) had high school teaching qualifications, 22.9% elementary school, 16.4% post 16, 14.1% special education and 4.7% preschool teaching qualifications. The median number of years of experience prior to being appointed as SBTE s was between 6 and 10, and that was also the median category of their experience as SBTE s. 46.4% worked with student teachers, 12.9% worked with qualified in-service teachers, and 40.7% worked with both groups. Most of the participants (88.4%) were in full-time employment. However, 77.7% reported that their work with teachers took 20% or less of their time, and 69.9% reported spending a similar amount of time on instructing student teachers. Table 5.1 presents the background characteristics of the participants from the six countries analysed in the current study.
Participants
| Variable | Austria | England | Israel | The Netherlands | Portugal | Scotland |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | 220 | 159 | 151 | 123 | 143 | 138 |
| Gender % female | 77.6 | 77.9 | 86.2 | 69.9 | 6.6 | 72.5 |
| Age group (Median) | 45–54 | 25–44 | 45–54 | 45–54 | 45–54 | 45–54 |
| Years of experience (Median) | 6–10 | 6–10 | 6–10 | 6–10 | 6–10 | 6–10 |
| Degree Non-academic BA MA PhD |
11.0 40.6 43.4 5.0 |
– 55.8 38.1 6.2 |
– 19.2 67.7 13.1 |
0.8 39.0 56.9 3.3 |
– 39.7 40.4 19.9 |
– 66.7 28.2 5.1 |
| % work with student teachers (Median) |
11–20 | 11–20 | 1–10 | 11–20 | 11–20 | 1–10 |
| % work with qualified teachers (Median) | 1–10 | 11–20 | 1–10 | 1–10 | 11–20 | 11–20 |
3.2 The Survey
The survey is based on a questionnaire used by Czerniawski and his colleagues (2017) to explore the professional development needs of higher education-based teacher educators. Participants were asked about their professional learning preferences (30 items); attitudes towards research and research experience (18 items); variables considered before engaging in a professional learning activity (9 items); and role description and background information (15 items). Most of the items (58) were multiple-choice questions with a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 (= not at all) to 7 (= very much). Twelve items had other multiple-choice options, and four items were open questions.
3.3
The survey was translated into the participating countries’ local languages and distributed online to SBTE s. SBTE s included teachers who mentored student teachers, interns and early-career teachers, as well as leading teachers who facilitated their colleagues’ professional learning.
3.4 Data Analysis
In order to converge the data into a representative set of factors, we performed factor analyses on the whole sample for three separate sections of the survey: participants’ professional learning preferences, attitudes towards research and research experience, and variables that may affect participants’ decisions about taking part in professional learning activity.
Three factors were associated with professional learning preferences:
- –Academic Interests: research-related activities such as attending and presenting at conferences and scholarly writing (9 items, Cronbach’s alpha = .88).
- –
Pedagogical Interests: acquiring knowledge and skills relating to teaching and mentoring (7 items, Cronbach’s alpha = .84). - –Working with colleagues: observations of and by colleagues and informal conversations with them (4 items, Cronbach’s alpha = .74).
Three factors described attitudes to and experience of research:
- –Personal Attitudes. This factor described the importance participants attributed to research when improving their knowledge and practices (6 items, Cronbach’s alpha = .88).
- –Actual Involvement in research: for example, experience with conducting and publishing research (7 items, Cronbach’s alpha = .82).
- –School Attitudes towards research. This factor explored the interest of school leadership and staff in research (3 items, Cronbach’s alpha = .84).
Two factors concerned variables that could influence participants’ decisions to engage in professional learning:
- –Internal Factors, such as the providers and the content of activities (5 items, Cronbach’s alpha = .77).
- –External Factors, such as their location and cost (3 items, Cronbach’s alpha = .71).
We used a mix of exploratory and confirmatory analytical models (EFA and CFA respectively). For the EFA, half the data were selected at random and used as a training sub-sample; and for the CFA the other half of the data was used as a test sub-sample (Osborne, 2015; Hefetz & Liberman, 2017). Overall, seven items were dropped due to multiple loadings (less than 0.2 difference between items’ factor loadings).
The findings for each country are interpreted in the relevant context, and general trends and policy implications are dealt with in the discussion.
4 Results
The research questions will be dealt with separately for each country, starting with the national context and policies related to SBTE s’ research, and moving on to address the survey results in relation to that context.
4.1 Austria
Context: In Austria, SBTE s include those who are mentoring novice teachers and supervising student teachers; such individuals are often appointed because
Findings: SBTE s in Austria identified themselves as mentors but did not actively characterise themselves as teacher educators. Most respondents (161, 73%) indicated that they had received specific training to prepare them for their mentoring roles. Their mean level of satisfaction with the professional learning opportunities they were presented with is medium-high (M = 4.69, SD = 1.23). Austrian SBTE s placed high value on learning opportunities that involved working with colleagues (M = 5.32, SD = 1.09) and activities that fostered their interests as educators (M = 5.04, SD = 1.04). To a lesser extent, they valued professional development that enhanced their academic knowledge and skills (M = 3.83, SD = 1.19).
Overall, Austrian SBTE s’ personal attitudes towards research were at a medium level (M = 3.61, SD = 1.33), while their actual involvement in research (M = 2.52, SD = 1.36) and their perception of their schools’ attitudes towards research (M = 2.74, SD = 1.54) were low. Although they generally valued the information provided by research (e.g., international exchanges, attending conferences), SBTE s showed a stronger preference for informal conversations with colleagues and observation of each other’s teaching.
4.2 Israel
Context: In Israel, most SBTE s are teachers who support student teachers, mentors of teachers during their first two or three years of teaching and facilitators of teachers’ professional learning communities (PLC s). SBTE s in the latter two groups are certified teachers with at least four years of teaching experience. Mentor teachers are required to participate in a two-stage (pre-service
Findings: Unsurprisingly, most of the participants (131, 89%) received some type of preparation or support for their role. A specific teacher education programme was the most common type of preparation, and had been attended by 89 (60%) of the participants. The structured and compulsory nature of SBTE s’ preparation and support may explain why internal (M = 4.25, SD = 1.36) and external (M = 4.02, SD = 1.66) factors have only a weak influence on Israeli SBTE s’ engagement with professional learning activities.
Overall, Israeli SBTE s’ level of interest in academic activities (M = 4.26, SD = 1.39) and attitudes towards research (M = 4.10, SD = 1.61) were medium. Interestingly, levels were significantly higher among SBTE s who supported both student teachers and in-service teachers than among those who only supported student teachers. Levels for SBTE s who only supported in-service teachers were between those for the other two groups. However, Israeli SBTE s’ actual involvement in research (M = 2.33, SD = 1.43) and their perceptions of schools’ attitudes towards research (M = 2.97, SD = 1.68) were low, with no differences between the groups.
4.3 The Netherlands
Context: In the Netherlands, SBTE s are mostly involved with supervising student teachers and in-service teachers (predominantly early-career teachers). SBTE s are generally experienced teachers. Schools increasingly work in partnerships between what are known as school educators and workplace mentors; the former play an overall role in the facilitation of student teacher learning in schools and collaborate closely with teacher education partners, while the latter focus on mentoring student teachers. Most SBTE s receive some form of formal preparation for their role; this is often provided by teacher education institutes. These courses focus primarily on (learning to) supervise (student) teachers rather than on research. Nationally, school-based educators increasingly follow the Dutch Teacher Educators Association (Velon) process, which leads to registration as a teacher educator. The process brings school-based teacher educators together to reflect collaboratively on their practice. The aim of this is not to foster research but to encourage informed reflection on their practice as teacher educators through engagement with research literature.
Dutch SBTE s’ interest in academic activity was at a medium level (M = 4.06, SD = 1.00), as were their attitudes towards research (M = 4.42, SD = 0.59). This may be the result of a range of factors, but also of their perception of schools’ (lack of) interest in research (M = 3.58; SD = 1.34). Whereas SBTE s’ attitudes towards research were at medium levels, their involvement in research was low (M = 2.43; SD = 1.37). This may be due to lack of opportunity or time for involvement in research (projects).
4.4 Portugal
Context: In Portugal, most SBTE s supervise student teachers (in their capacity as cooperating supervisors); they also lead INSET (In-service education and training of teachers) activities for in-service teachers (in which context they are usually known as trainers) especially at Schools’ Association Training Centres. According to the existing legal framework (Decree-Law nº 79/2014), cooperating supervisors are selected on the basis of the following criteria: (1) appropriate formal training and experience and (2) at least 5 years’ teaching experience in a given subject area. Cooperating supervisors usually hold a Master’s degree in Supervision. The vast majority of the Portuguese participants in this study (69.2%) held a postgraduate degree (e.g. academic specialisation (11.9%), Master’s degree (40.4%) or PhD (19.9%)). As such, most of them had research knowledge and skills. SBTE s involved with formal training for in-service teachers also generally have post-graduate level qualifications (usually a Master’s degree and sometimes a PhD). A Master’s degree is required for entry into any teaching sector in Portugal (from pre-school to secondary school). However, the teacher shortage is now a reality, especially in certain subjects (including ICT, Portuguese, Physics and Chemistry, and History) and the government has announced that it will be introducing as yet unspecified changes to initial teacher training.
Findings: Not surprisingly, Portuguese SBTE displayed a high level of interest in academic activities (M = 4.85, SD = 1.24) and had positive attitudes towards research (M = 5.51, SD = 1.34). However, their actual involvement in research is medium (M = 3.56, SD = 1.74); this may have been related to their perception that schools have a lack of interest in research (M = 3.31, SD = 1.69) and to heavy workloads and time management issues. In general, Portuguese SBTE
4.5 Scotland
Context: The Scottish data presented in Table 5.1 might suggest that low numbers of teachers support the development of other teachers, however in Scotland, all school teachers are expected to take on the role of SBTE s. All teachers must have a relevant degree (or equivalent) and a recognised teaching qualification, and are required to uphold the professional standards set by the independent professional and regulatory body for teaching, The General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTCS). These include the requirement that teachers “work collaboratively to contribute to the professional learning and development of colleagues, including student teachers” (GTCS, 2021). This means that, in Scotland, relatively inexperienced teachers can be SBTE s and indeed of the survey respondents (n = 138), 25% had less than two years’ teaching experience, 25% had a Master’s degree and 5% had doctoral degrees. However, there is no mandatory formal qualification or professional learning for teachers wishing to become SBTE s. On the other hand, the GTCS requires teachers to maintain a reflective record of professional learning and development with regard to its professional standards, as part of a five-yearly professional update process. The professional standards also require all teachers to engage with, and in, research and professional enquiry (GTCS, 2021). In this context then, SBTE s can be expected at least to engage with research as part of their practice even if they do not engage in research.
Findings: SBTE s in Scotland mostly preferred the term mentor over SBTE. However, that might be influenced by the use of mentors: teachers who support the development of newly qualified teachers (NQT s) in their induction year (supported first year of employment as a qualified teacher) to help with
4.6 England
Context: In England, schools are replacing universities as the decision makers on who can and who cannot be recruited into the profession. The UK Government’s 2022 Initial Teacher Training (ITT) market review (DfE, 2022) announced that a total of 179 providers (including schools and universities) had been accredited to deliver ITT courses in the “reformed market” with effect from the 2024/2025 academic year (DfE, 2022). That announcement did not, however, convey that of the original 240 providers currently in existence, a third of school-based initial teacher trainers (SCITT s) and one in seven universities in England failed to gain accreditation (Schools Week, 2022). The marketisation of teacher training exemplified in England means a variety of pathways into the profession and a variety of types of school (e.g. Grammar; ‘Specialist’; ‘faith’ and independent) are available to those choosing to train as teachers. In addition to traditional university ITT routes, pathways include school-centred Initial Teacher Training schemes (SCITTS); employment-based routes (EBITTS), School Direct, Teach First and ‘teaching schools’. SBTE s will often be tasked with organising some or all aspects of professional learning for both pre-service and in service teachers. This work often includes the recruitment of trainee teachers, the design, implementation and evaluation of course components, and assessments at the end of training plus any continuing professional developmental activities that might be provided for more experienced colleagues (White, Dickerson, & Weston, 2015). Delivery models vary but many SBTE s work independently and/or with private providers and/or school networks while others work with universities and HEI-based teacher
For many SBTE s, the above context would seem to provide little or no opportunity to engage in research activity. CPD for teachers in England, including SBTE s, is largely unregulated, beyond the inclusion in the inspection framework of an obligation for school leaders to ‘focus on improving staff’s subject, pedagogical, and pedagogical content knowledge’ (Ofsted, 2019, ‘Leadership and Management’ section). Indeed, the word ‘research’ does not appear once in the UK government’s most recent (2021) update of its 2011 Teaching Standards and ‘scholarship’ is mentioned just once (DfE, 2022). And yet practitioner research is widespread in English schools, as is broader discussion of ‘research informed’ as opposed to ‘scholarship informed’ teaching (Gewirtz, 2013). The growth of academy chains (state funded schools that are independent of local authorities) has been accompanied by a renewed interest in school-based practitioner research; this was accelerated in 2016 by the growth of ‘research schools’ set up in partnership with the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF, the Institute for Effective Education (IEE) and backed by the Department for Education (DfE). Grassroots teacher research organisations (e.g. ResearchEd), learned institutions (e.g. British Educational Research Association) and the widespread take up of Professional Doctorates in Education (EdDs) by teachers across the country means that there is a vibrant and growing research culture in many (but not all) schools in England.
Findings: The majority of SBTE s described themselves as “mentors” (n = 102) with 45.3% of the sample (n = 159) attending a ‘specific teacher education study programme’. However, this included mentor training which many universities in England offer their partnership schools automatically and often only takes up just a half or full day in any given academic year. The level of English SBTE s’ interest in academic activities (M = 4.09, SD = 1.11) and their attitudes towards research (M = 4.80, SD = 1.49) were at medium to medium-high levels. While their actual involvement in research was statistically low (M = 2.80, SD = 1.43) this level of involvement was the second highest within the group (just below that of Portugal). Despite its medium score (M = 4.17, SD = 1.84), school attitudes to research in the English sample were the most positive within this group of countries, indicative perhaps, of the contextual factors relating to research as described above. SBTE s placed high value on learning opportunities that involved working with colleagues (M = 5.27, SD = 0.98); activities that fostered their pedagogical interests (M = 4.77, SD = 1.24) scored medium to high.
5
This chapter has highlighted the relationship between research-based knowledge and scholarship, and how both can inform the professional learning and practice of SBTE s as smart consumers and producers of research. The chapter has also drawn attention to the historic legacy and growth of school-based practitioner research as an invaluable mechanism for improving teaching and learning. But bringing these two strands together in ways that can provide impactful forms of professional developmental for SBTE s is challenging. Our findings indicate that many SBTE s receive some sort of professional development in relation to part of their role as teacher educators; however, such learning activities do not, in most cases, target research and scholarly activity.
Reflecting on different models of professional development and their appropriateness to school-based settings must be the starting point for discussions with SBTE s and those who manage them; it is important to seek SBTE s’ views on the forms of professional learning they might value in their careers. But the efficacy of such discussions rests on the understanding that SBTE s are a heterogeneous group of professionals. Factors determining such heterogeneity include location of employment; type, structure and level of school; career stage (e.g. early- or mid-career); teaching experience and teacher educator experience; and the extent to which SBTE s work within higher education institutions. These factors align with the structural features identified by Willemse and Boei (2017) as influencing the extent to which SBTE s are, or can be, active researchers. Our findings indicate that there are both structural and agentic differences in SBTE s’ views about the role of research in teacher education and about their research capacity. These differences are partially but not exclusively dependant on the participants’ national contexts; their career stage (i.e. early-career; mid-career; experienced SBTE s) and the level of support they receive from the schools that employ them. There is a marked difference across all participants in this study in terms of their attitudes to research and their involvement in research. Greater encouragement of practitioner engagement in research by funding agencies would boost teachers’ agency by raising the status of practitioner research and enable more teachers to become both knowledge consumers and knowledge producers (MacPhail et al., 2022). It is noteworthy that Portugal recorded the highest positive personal attitudes towards research and the highest actual involvement in research, and this is almost certainly associated with the country’s legal framework (Decree-Law nº 79/2014) and rigid selection criteria for SBTE s as described above. It is also explained by the qualifications of the Portuguese participants in this study,
Reducing the gap between theory and practice is often referred to as a motivation for schools’ greater role in educating student teachers as well as practicing teachers (Mutton et al., 2017; White & Swennen, 2021). However, as the findings of this study suggest that the cost of this may be the elimination of research from teachers’ training and professional development. Without research skills, and funds and support for teachers’ research, teachers will be prevented from developing their expertise, leading to further de-professionalisation of teachers.
Acknowledging the value of practitioner-based research in professional learning, Murray (2011) called for the “re-framing of the place of research in induction and professional development in teacher education” (p. 121). Over a decade after this call, and at a time when many countries are increasing their provision of school-based teacher education, our findings are timely and indicate just how much more needs to be done by those in leadership positions in schools and higher education in terms of critically reflecting on the supply and quality of support they provide for SBTE s’ research aspirations. This does, however, pose a wicked policy problem (Roberts, 2000) for any government whose auditing mechanisms only address research output from universities. To what extent such mechanisms should be introduced into schools is a discussion that goes beyond the remit of this chapter. Nevertheless, in order for this reframing to take place, we hope that policy makers, subject discipline and research associations, and leadership teams in schools, colleges and universities can reflect on the implications of this study for the professional development of all teacher educators and not just those based in schools.
6
In this chapter we have explored the complex relationships between research and practice in the professional development of SBTE s as well as the many challenges they face in becoming teacher educator-researchers. But the efficacy of this exploration would be undermined if we did not acknowledge its policy implications and the need for more effective interactions between research, policy and practice (Menter & Flores, 2021). Colleagues have written elsewhere (Czerniawski et al., 2018) about their fears with regard to the potential diminution of the role played by research in the quality of ITE, teacher educators’ professional learning and teacher professionalism. To some extent, this chapter offers complex hope by casting a spotlight on the substantial involvement in research activity acknowledged by many SBTE s in this survey. Our survey also shows that SBTE s’ attitudes towards research are positive. But SBTE s require not only research skills but also greater support and resources (including time and CPD opportunities) to develop and strengthen an inquiry-based approach to teaching and teacher education. However, in most of the countries we examined, policymakers and schools do not provide the infrastructure to support research. It is important to acknowledge this lack of provision in light of the significant evidence on the role that research and enquiry plays in effective teacher education, professionalism and the quality of student learning (BERA-RSA, 2014). Learning from Portugal, it seems that supportive legislation should be brought forward, and budget and assessment criteria developed, to ensure that SBTE s are research-literate practitioners providing high quality education to their mentees and who can play an active role in the development of their profession.
Taken together, the findings presented here highlight the need for more targeted and authentic professional development focusing on the skills needed to undertake school-based research, if more SBTE s are to engage in research activity. For policymakers, this finding is important because, as Gewirtz (2013) argues, the danger in talking about research-informed teacher education is that this merely reinforces a reductionist, techno-engineering model of teacher education where prospective teachers simply implement ‘what works’ uncritically rather than reflecting on their practice, and its impact and rationale. In a similar vein, at the TEPE conference in 2022, Rachel Lofthouse expressed fears that there is a danger that research will be reduced to focusing on the ‘what’, the ‘where’, and the ‘why’ – but not the ‘how’. The nurturing of SBTE’s scholarly and researcherly inclinations (Tack and Vanderlinde 2014) must, therefore, be a prerequisite for authentic and enduring professional learning
References
BERA-RSA. (2014). Research and the Teaching Profession – Building the capacity for a self-improving education system. Final report of the BERA-RSA inquiry into the role of research in teacher education. BERA.
Boyd, P., Tibke, J. (2012). Being a school-based teacher educator: Developing pedagogy and identity in facilitating work-based higher education in a professional field. Practitioner Research in Higher Education, 6(2), 41–57.
Boyer, E. L. (1996). From scholarship reconsidered to scholarship assessed. Quest, 48(2), 129–139.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2003). Learning and unlearning: The education of teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 5–28.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). Teacher educators as researchers: Multiple perspectives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 155–166, 219–225.
Corey, S. M. (1949). Action research, fundamental research and educational practitioners. Teachers’ College Record, 50, 509–514.
Czerniawski, G., Gray, D., MacPhail, A., Bain, Y., Conway, P., & Guberman, A. (2018). The professional learning needs and priorities of higher-education based teacher educators in England, Ireland and Scotland. Journal of Education for Teaching, 44(2), 133–149.
Czerniawski, G., Kidd, W., & Murray, J. (2019). We are all teacher educators now: Understanding school-based teacher educators in times of change in England. In J. Murray, A. Swennen, & C. Kosnik (Eds.), International research, policy and practice. Springer.
Czerniawski, G., MacPhail, A., & Guberman, A. (2017). The professional development needs of higher education-based teacher educators: An international comparative needs analysis. The European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(1), 127–140.
Davey, R. (2013). The professional identity of teacher educators: Careers on the cusp. Routledge.
Department for Education. (2022a). Teachers’ Standards Guidance for school leaders, school staff and governing bodies: July 2011 (introduction updated June 2013, latest terminology update December 2021). https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1040274/Teachers__Standards_Dec_2021.pdf
Department for Education. (2022b). Initial Teacher Training (ITT) market review. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/initial-teacher-training-itt-market-review/initial-teacher-training-itt-market-review-overview
Elliott, J. (1988). Educational research and outsider-insider relations. Qualitative Studies in Education, 1, 155–166.
Federal Law No. 211/2013. Dienstrechts-Novelle 2013 – Pädagogischer Dienst [Teacher service code 2013 – Teaching service]. https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/eli/bgbl/I/2013/211/20131227
Gewirtz, S. (2013). Developing teachers school-citizens, reasserting the value of university involvement in teacher education. In L. Florian & N. Pantic (Eds.), Learning to teach: Part 1: Exploring the history and role of higher education in teacher education (pp. 10–13). Higher Education Academy.
GTCS. (2021). The general teaching council for Scotland professional standards for teachers. https://www.gtcs.org.uk/professional-standards/professional-standards-for-teachers/
Hammersley, M. (1993). On the teacher as researcher. Educational Action Research, 1(3), 425–445.
Hefetz, A., & Liberman, G. (2017). The factor analysis procedure for exploration: A short guide with examples. Culturay Educación, 29(3), 526–562.
Loughran, J. (2014). Professionally developing as a teacher educator. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 1–13.
Lunenberg, M., Dengerlink, J., & Korthagen, F. (2014). The professional teacher educators: Roles, behaviour and professional development of teachers. Sense Publications.
MacPhail, A., Seleznyov, S., O’Donnel, C., & Czerniawski, G. (2022). Supporting the continuum of teacher education through policy and practice: The inter-relationships between initial, induction, and continuing professional development. In T. Bourk, D. Henderson, R. Spooner-Lane, & S. White (Eds.), Reconstructing the work of teacher educators. Springer.
Menter, I., & Flores, M. A. (2020). Connecting research and professionalism in teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 44(1), 115–127.
Murray, J. (2011). Towards a new language of scholarship in teacher educators’ professional learning. In T. Bates, A. Swennen, & K. Jones (Eds.), The professional development of teacher educators. Routledge.
Murray, J., Czerniawski, G., & Barber, P. (2014). Teacher educators’ identities and work in England at the beginning of the second decade of the twenty-first century. In J. Murray & C. Kosnik (Eds.), Academic work and identities in teacher education. Routledge.
Murray, J., Swennen, A., Kosnik, C. (2019). International research, policy and practice in teacher education – Insider perspectives. Springer.
Mutton, T., Burn, K., & Menter, I. (2017). Deconstructing the Carter review: Competing conceptions of quality in England’s ‘School-led’ system of initial teacher education. Journal of Education Policy, 32(1), 14–33.
OECD. (2015). Frascati manual 2015: Guidelines for collecting and reporting data on research and experimental development. OECD Publishing.
Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted). (2019). Quality of education. https://successforall.org.uk/ofsted/
Osborne, J. W. (2015). What is rotating in exploratory factor analysis? Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 20(1), 2.
Roberts, N. (2018). Coping with wicked problems: The case of Afghanistan. In Learning from international public management reform. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-1317(01)11006-7
Rudduck, J. (1987). Teacher research, action research, teacher inquiry: What’s in a name? In J. Rudduck, D. Hopkins, J. Sanger, & P. Lincoln (Eds.), Collaborative inquiry and information skills, British library research paper 16. British Library.
Schools Week. (2022). ITT Review: 5k places at risk as third of SCITTS left out. https://schoolsweek.co.uk/itt-review-5k-places-at-risk-as-third-of-scitts-left-out/
Smith, K. (2015). The role of research in teacher education. Research in Teacher Education, 5(2), 43–46.
Smith, K., & Flores, M. A. (2019) The Janus faced teacher educator. European Journal of Teacher Education, 42(4), 433–446.
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. Heinemann.
Tack, H., & Vanderlinde, R. (2014). Teacher educators’ professional development: Towards a typology of teacher educators’ researcherly disposition. British Journal of Educational Studies, 62(3), 297–315.
Vanderlinde, R., Smith, K., Murray, J., & Lunenberg, M. (2021). Teacher educators’ professional development: Looking to the future. In R. Vanderlinde, K. Smith, J. Murray, & M. Lunenberg (Eds.), Teacher educators and their professional development – learning from the past, looking to the future. Routledge.
White, E. (2017, August 25). Developing research-rich teaching practices as an experienced teacher educator [Paper presentation]. European Educational Research Association (ECER) annual conference. University College (UCC) Copenhagen, Denmark.
Willemse, T. M., & Boei, F. (2017). Supporting teacher educators’ professional development in research and supervising students’ research. In P. Boyd & A. Szplit Teachers and teacher educators learning through enquiry: International perspectives. Wydawnictwo Attyka.
Windl, E., & Dammerer, J. (2019). Teacher training in Austria with special consideration of mentoring in the induction phase [Paper presentation]. IFTE 2019 Conference, University of Kazan. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.16732.03202
White, E., & Swennen, A. (2021). Being a teacher educator: Research-informed methods for improving practice. Taylor and Francis.
Wyse, D., Brown, C., Oliver, S., & Poblete, X. (2018). The BERA close-to-practice research project: Research report. British Educational Research Association. https://www.bera.ac.uk/researchers-resources/publications/bera-statement-on-close-to-practice-research