2.1 Definitions

Various labels have been applied to the research that teachers do in classrooms and schools. Roulston et al. (Reference Roulston, Legette, DeLoach and Pittman2005), for example, list the following: action research, practitioner research, collaborative inquiry, critical inquiry, self study, and teacher research. It is the last of these that I will use here in discussing teacher engagement in research.

The work on teacher research of Cochran-Smith and Lytle has been very influential, particularly in North America (Cochran-Smith & Lytle Reference Cochran-Smith and Lytle1990, Reference Cochran-Smith and Lytle1993, Reference Cochran-Smith and Lytle2009; Lytle & Cochran-Smith Reference Lytle and Cochran-Smith1990, Reference Lytle, Cochran-Smith, Hollingsworth and Sockett1994). They define teacher research

In the UK, and writing in the context of school improvement, Carter and Halsall (Reference Carter, Halsall and Halsall1998: 73–74) suggest the following ‘essential characteristics’ of teacher research:

• • it is grounded in data which has been systematically collected and analysed for a clearly defined purpose;

• • it is undertaken by teachers, though sometimes with the support of external critical friends;

• • it focuses on professional activity, usually in the workplace itself;

• • its purpose is to clarify aspects of that activity, with a view to bringing about beneficial change – ultimately, to improve student progress, achievement and development, this being precisely the purpose of school improvement itself.

One final definition we can consider here comes from Lankshear and Knobel (Reference Lankshear and Knobel2004: 9), who define teacher researchers as

What these and other definitions of teacher research have in common is that they refer to inquiry conducted by teachers in their own professional contexts; and, influenced by the work of Stenhouse (Reference Stenhouse1975), these definitions also typically characterize such inquiry as being systematic. Lankshear and Knobel's definition stresses the self-initiated nature of teacher research (i.e. teachers themselves must want to do it and must have some control over its focus and conduct) and suggests it may be collaborative, while, in the definition cited earlier, Cochran-Smith and Lytle distinguish, helpfully I feel, between reflection and teacher research: while teacher research is necessarily reflective, reflecting on one's practice does not automatically constitute teacher research.

Returning to terms commonly associated with teacher research, practitioner research is similar in purpose and conduct to teacher research (and is often used as a synonym for it); it refers to systematic inquiry by professionals in any discipline who are investigating their own practices (so the practitioners may be, for example, nurses). Action research is a form of practitioner research which is characterized by particular procedures, which broadly involve the introduction and evaluation of new practices, typically through a number of investigative cycles (in LT, see Wallace Reference Wallace1998; Burns Reference Burns2005b, Reference Burns2010). Some definitions of action research (e.g. Kemmis & McTaggart Reference Kemmis and McTaggart1988) also stipulate that it should be collective or collaborative, though this is not a condition covered in all definitions of the term. Teacher research is thus a broader term than action research – while action research (when conducted by teachers) is also teacher research, not all teacher research follows the procedures which define action research. Classroom research, a third term often mentioned in the context of teacher research, is simply systematic inquiry which is conducted in classrooms; much teacher research is classroom research, but not all classroom research is teacher research (e.g. academics may visit schools to collect data for their research). In her analysis of the relationship between teacher research, action research and classroom research, Bailey (Reference Bailey and Celce-Murcia2001: 491) concludes that ‘the term classroom research refers to the location and focus of the study. Teacher research refers to the agents who conduct the study. Action research denotes a particular approach’. These broad distinctions are helpful, though incomplete as the basis of a precise definition of what teacher research is (I formulate such a definition at the end of this section).

Another definitional issue to consider here relates to whether teacher research needs to be made public. One argument for doing so is that dissemination is a basic characteristic of all research. Stenhouse's definition of research – ‘systematic inquiry made public’ (Reference Stenhouse1975: 142) makes this position clear; he also notes that ‘private research for our purpose does not count as research’ (Reference Stenhouse1981: 111). Support for this position is also evident in LT: Brumfit and Mitchell (Reference Brumfit and Mitchell1989: 7) argue that all research, including teacher research, should be ‘public because it needs to be distinguished from simply improving one's own private understanding: it is not another name for personal study’, while Crookes (Reference Crookes1993: 137, drawing on Stern Reference Stern1983) says that ‘research is not research unless communicated’.

From a different perspective, Allwright and Hanks (Reference Allwright and Hanks2009) focus on the benefits of making teacher research public; for example, they note that findings which are public can inform educational decision-making. More generally, I would add that the dissemination of teacher research creates greater potential for the knowledge teachers generate through their inquiries to have influence beyond the contexts in which this knowledge is generated. Conversely, as Barkhuizen (Reference Barkhuizen2009: 124) explains, a failure to make teacher research public ‘would mean missing the opportunity and ignoring the responsibility to contribute to discussions and debates in the field of language education’. Freeman (Reference Freeman, Bailey and Nunan1996: 105) similarly expresses concerns that if teacher research is not made public, the knowledge it generates will ‘dissipate in the recesses of private conversations, staff rooms, or schools’. The need for teacher research to be made public does not imply that private inquiry is not beneficial. Given its private nature, though, such inquiry need not appropriate the term ‘research’.

The view that teacher research cannot remain a private activity is not motivated by a desire to see it as an approximation of academic research. Bartels (Reference Bartels2003) suggests that imposing academic notions of dissemination on teacher research in this way would be ‘colonialist’. Bartels’ concerns are justified if formal research reports are seen as the only acceptable way of making teacher research public. My position is to promote a broad view of dissemination which directs teachers to the many varied formats, oral and written, formal and less formal, formative and summative, through which they can make their work available for public scrutiny. This stance, I believe, is in no way colonialist, and it is illustrated in the many excellent suggestions for sharing teacher research contained in texts such as Burns (Reference Burns1999) and Altrichter et al. (Reference Altrichter, Feldman, Posch and Somekh2008).

One final element to consider briefly in defining teacher research is the data collection strategies it utilizes. Teacher research is more commonly associated with qualitative forms of inquiry and investigative strategies which are accessible to teachers, though in theory there are no limitations on the strategies that teacher researchers can deploy (and quantitative techniques are sometimes used). The many different data collection methods available to teacher researchers are illustrated in, for example, Freeman (Reference Freeman1998), Burns (Reference Burns1999), Edwards (Reference Edwards, Edwards and Willis2005) and McKernan (Reference McKernan1996).

On the basis of the above analysis, I thus define teacher research as systematic inquiry, qualitative and/or quantitative, conducted by teachers in their own professional contexts, individually or collaboratively (with other teachers and/or external collaborators), which aims to enhance teachers’ understandings of some aspect of their work, is made public, has the potential to contribute to better quality teaching and learning in individual classrooms, and which may also inform institutional improvement and educational policy more broadly.

2.2 Origins of teacher research

The history of teacher research has been well-documented (e.g. Olson Reference Olson and Olson1990; Elliott Reference Elliott1991; Crookes Reference Crookes1993; Hollingsworth & Sockett Reference Hollingsworth, Sockett, Hollingsworth and Sockett1994; McKernan Reference McKernan1996; Burns Reference Burns1999; Zeichner & Noffke Reference Zeichner, Noffke and Richardson2001; McNiff & Whitehead Reference McNiff and Whitehead2002; Noffke Reference Noffke, Day, Elliott, Somekh and Winter2002; Hammersley Reference Hammersley2004a). Action research is seen as its ancestor and accounts of the origins of teacher research thus typically begin with reference to the work of Kurt Lewin in the USA in 1940s. Another early source was Corey (Reference Corey1953), though despite this work, action research virtually disappeared from the educational landscape in the USA in the 1950s and 1960s. The more recent emergence of teacher research is traced to parallel efforts in the UK and the USA which took place in the 1970s. These efforts shared a concern for educational reform, in particular for democratizing education and making it a more participatory process. In the UK, the teacher research movement emerged in the context of curriculum reform initiatives and is most closely associated with the work of Stenhouse (Reference Stenhouse1975) and Elliott (see Elliott (Reference Elliott1990) for brief history). In the USA, it is Schön's (Reference Schön1983) work on reflective practice which is seen as critical to a renewed interest in teacher research; his argument that professionals were not unthinking technicians but reflective practitioners provided impetus for initiatives which placed teachers in the rôle of autonomous investigators of their work. Teacher research with a strong reflective element was thus seen as an ideal way for professionals to explore and develop their own understandings of their practices.

In LT, attention to teacher research dates back to as recently as the late 1980s, stimulated in part, as Allwright and Bailey (Reference Allwright and Bailey1991) explain, by the inconclusive results of large-scale studies aiming to identify the best way to promote language learning. These results created an awareness in the field that the search for global pedagogical prescriptions was unlikely to be productive; local, classroom-based research thus emerged as an alternative. Of course, much of the early classroom research in LT was not teacher research (see, for example, the review of academic classroom research in Chaudron Reference Chaudron1988); however, the emergence of classroom research did provide the basis for the next logical step in the evolution of LT research – that classroom studies would start to be conducted by teachers themselves. Distinctions between teachers and researchers, between practice and theory, would thus, it was believed, be narrowed, and teaching would no longer be seen as ‘something which certain people do and others research’ (Freeman Reference Freeman, Bailey and Nunan1996: 106).

Allwright and Bailey (Reference Allwright and Bailey1991) was an early attempt to promote teacher inquiry, though Allwright (Reference Allwright2003: 116) later reflected with regret that that text ‘had unintentionally made classroom research so demanding that teachers would not be able to do it unless they had extra time and extra support’. Nunan's work (Reference Nunan1989a, Reference Nunan1989b, Reference Nunan, Edge and Richards1993) was also influential in giving teacher research prominence in LT. In the last twenty years there have been a number of texts whose aim is to enable language teachers to engage in research, often from an explicitly teacher research (or action research) perspective (McDonough & McDonough Reference McDonough and McDonough1997; Freeman Reference Freeman1998; Wallace Reference Wallace1998; Burns Reference Burns1999; O'Brien & Beaumont Reference O'Brien and Beaumont2000; Burns Reference Burns2010).

2.3 Conceptualizations of teacher research

Given its diverse historical roots, it is not surprising that contemporary forms of teacher research reflect different underlying conceptualizations of its goals. Hammersley (Reference Hammersley2004a), for example, talks about three views of action research: as a way of solving practical classroom problems, as a movement for social change, and as a form of personal professional development. In a related though not identical scheme, Cochran-Smith and Lytle (Reference Cochran-Smith and Lytle1999) also discuss three conceptualizations of teacher research: teacher research as social inquiry, as ways of knowing within communities and as practical inquiry. The first sees teacher research – particularly in the form of action research – as a way of promoting social change. Teacher research with a social orientation is often described as emancipatory (drawing on Carr and Kemmis Reference Carr and Kemmis1986). This perspective on teacher research is also referred to as critical praxis (Hollingsworth & Sockett Reference Hollingsworth, Sockett, Hollingsworth and Sockett1994). It adopts a socio-political stance to the study of education which aims to disrupt and change existing inequitable social conditions.

The second view of teacher research noted above (ways of knowing within communities) sees it as a form of collaborative enquiry through which teachers improve classrooms and schools. As already noted, collaboration is core to some definitions of teacher research (in LT, see Burns Reference Burns1999), and the idea that teacher research can contribute not just to individual teacher development but to broader improvements to schools and classrooms is also a common one. This perspective can be seen, for example, in the papers in Halsall (Reference Halsall1998), where teacher research is positioned as a key mechanism for school improvement. A concern for improving schools also underlies much recent state-funded teacher research in the UK, with references to research-engaged schools a common feature of the discourse in this context (e.g. CUREE 2003; Handscomb & Macbeath Reference Handscomb and Macbeath2003; Sharp et al. Reference Sharp, Eames, Sanders and Tomlinson2005, Reference Sharp, Eames, Sanders and Tomlinson2006).

In the third conceptualization of teacher research noted above (as practical inquiry), it is seen as a vehicle for making explicit and developing teachers’ practical knowledge. Here there is an often individual (and, Hammersley Reference Hammersley2004a suggests, instrumental) focus on solving practical classroom problems. Edge (Reference Edge2001: 5) describes this view of action research as being ‘means oriented’ (he does also list a number of other possible orientations, some of which – e.g. society oriented – relate to the various conceptualizations of teacher research outlined above).

In the context of LT, a particular conceptualization of teacher research that merits attention here is exploratory practice (EP) (Allwright Reference Allwright2003, Reference Allwright2005). Motivated by the view that ‘practitioner-research, at its worst, seems to constitute a way of getting research done badly and making the process so demanding that it is patently unsustainable and therefore soon abandoned’ (Allwright Reference Allwright1997: 368), EP was developed as a form of teacher research which can be integrated into teachers’ everyday practices and which aims to improve the quality of classroom life for teachers and learners. EP is contrasted with action research as follows:

Given this position, proponents of EP might disagree with it being described as ‘a more teacher-friendly version of action research’ (Dörnyei Reference Dörnyei2007: 193). That apart, though, some justification for EP's stance to action research is found in the way that the latter is often defined as a problem-solving activity (which thus implies an intention is to promote change): Richards and Farrell (Reference Richards and Farrell2005: 171), for example, define action research as ‘teacher-conducted classroom research that seeks to clarify and resolve practical teaching issues and problems’. There is evidence, too, that teachers often see action research as a problem-solving activity (Rainey Reference Rainey2000). However, I consider this explicit emphasis on problem-solving unnecessary, as action research can be stimulated by an interest in understanding current practice even when there is no immediate problem to solve. Altrichter et al. (Reference Altrichter, Feldman, Posch and Somekh2008: i) acknowledge this in writing that ‘Action research is a method used by teachers and other professionals to improve their understanding of their practice situations, and as a way to generate knowledge about practice’. This conception of action research aligns quite well with EP's focus on understanding; thus, while I fully support EP's goal of making teacher research a more feasible and productive activity for teachers and learners, I do not feel the oppositions it sets up with action research are wholly necessary.

2.4 Evidence-based practice

A further perspective on teacher research is offered by evidence-based practice (EBP). Stimulated by critiques of the quality and impact of educational research in the UK (e.g. Tooley & Darby Reference Tooley and Darby1998), significant government funding has been invested in making teaching an evidence-based profession (i.e. one where teachers engage in and with research). Similar concerns have been raised in the USA and Australia: see Department of Education Training and Youth Affairs (2000) and Shavelson and Towne (Reference Shavelson and Towne2002). The thinking behind EBP in the UK has been extensively described and debated in the literature (Hammersley Reference Hammersley2007 is a compilation of key relevant papers); one of its major premises is that when teachers engage with and in research and make pedagogical decisions based on, or informed by, sound research evidence, this will have a beneficial effect on both teaching and learning (Davies Reference Davies1999). While the validity of the EBP metaphor (adopted from the field of medicine) for education has been challenged (e.g. Hammersley Reference Hammersley, Thomas and Pring2004b), it is generally accepted that more informed use of and involvement in research by teachers can have a positive impact on their work. I return to some of these ideas in Section 3, where I consider more closely the relationship between reading research and teachers’ classroom practices.

Numerous funded opportunities have been set up in the UK to encourage teachers to become research-engaged. These have been summarized in various publications (e.g. CERI/OECD 2002) and have also been reviewed extensively (e.g. Foster Reference Foster1999; Bartlett Reference Bartlett2002; Simons, Kushner & James Reference Simons, Kushner and James2003). Such initiatives have included The National Teacher Research Panel, Teacher Training Agency (TTA) school-based research consortia (funded collaborations between universities and schools), the Teacher Research Grant Scheme and Best Practice Research Scholarships, and The National College of School Leadership. According to Cordingley (Reference Cordingley, Thomas and Pring2004), such initiatives have involved over 10,000 teachers. There have also been initiatives aimed at making published research more accessible to teachers and I discuss these in Section 3 below.

2.5 Language teacher research

Having covered a range of foundational issues, I would now like to focus in more specific detail on LT, where a number of publications evidencing teacher research are available. Early examples came from the ‘Teachers Develop Teachers Research’ series of conferences organized by IATEFL (e.g. Edge & Richards Reference Edge and Richards1993; Field et al. Reference Field, Graham, Griffiths and Head1997). Recent years, in addition to continued publications by IATEFL (e.g. Mitchell-Schuitevoerder & Mourão Reference Mitchell-Schuitevoerder and Mourão2006), have seen the publication of the ‘Language Teacher Research’ series by TESOL, with volumes covering the Americas, Asia, the Middle East, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, and Africa (Borg Reference Borg2006d; Farrell Reference Farrell2006; Burns & Burton Reference Burns and Burton2007; Coombe & Barlow Reference Coombe and Barlow2007; McGarrell Reference McGarrell2007; Makalela Reference Makalela2009). There have been special issues of the journals TESOL Journal (Volume 4, Issue 1) and The Canadian Modern Language Review (Volume 54, Issue 1) dedicated to teacher research. From Australia we have eight volumes in the ‘Teachers’ Voices’ series (e.g. Burns & Hood Reference Burns and Hood1995; Burns & Hood Reference Burns and Hood1997; de Silva Joyce Reference de Silva Joyce2000) and the LIPT [Languages Inservice Program for Teachers] project in South Australia (for examples of work from this project, see Freeman Reference Freeman1998, Appendix E). Relevant collections of papers have come out of Asia (Tinker Sachs Reference Tinker Sachs2002; Hadley Reference Hadley2003) and more recently the Middle East, in Dubai (Warne et al. Reference Warne, O'Brien, Syed and Zuriek2006; Gallagher & Bashir-Ali Reference Gallagher and Bashir-Ali2007) and the Sultanate of Oman (Borg Reference Borg2006c, Reference Borg2008b, Reference Borg2009c, Reference Borgd). Edge (Reference Edge2001) has also showcased action research in a range of ELT settings internationally, Edwards and Willis (Reference Edwards and Willis2005) is a collection of reports by language teachers researching the use of tasks in their classrooms, while Johnson and Golombek (Reference Johnson and Golombek2002) includes narratives written by teachers exploring their own work. There are also regional publications which have a particular focus on teacher research, such as the journal PROFILE, published in Colombia. The journal Language Teaching Research devotes regular space to exploratory practice (further examples of EP are available in Allwright and Hanks Reference Allwright and Hanks2009). Teacher research has also appeared in journals such as English Teaching Forum and ELT Journal; Kiely's (Reference Kiely and Pawlak2008) analysis indicates that there were 28 teacher research articles in ELT Journal Volume 57 and 27 in Volume 60 – significant numbers (but see my critique of this analysis in 2.7). The recently revived TESOL Journal (now in electronic form only) also dedicates a regular section to teacher research.

Whilst maintaining my position here that, globally speaking, language teacher engagement in research remains limited, the publications listed above do amount to a considerable body of inquiry in a range of international language teaching contexts (see Burns, this volume, for a comparative book review including some of this material). Table 1 presents an analysis of ten illustrative teacher research papers from the above sources and a number of observations about this work can be made in relation to issues covered so far:

• • With one exception, all the papers meet the basic criteria for teacher research discussed in 2.1. Jafri (Reference Jafri, Coombe and Barlow2007), though, represents research done on others and, coupled with its academic orientation, is not in my view an example of teacher research (despite the title of the collection in which it appears).

• • A wide range of investigative strategies have been utilized, reflecting the point I made earlier about the inclusiveness of teacher research in this respect.

• • In several studies there is little explicit concern to frame findings (e.g. via a literature review) in a way that might connect with contexts outside those studied.

• • The dominant (and largely implicit) conceptualization of teacher research in these papers is one that involves individual teachers addressing problems, exploring puzzles or assessing the impact of interventions in their individual classrooms.

• • In many cases the research element of teachers’ work was integrated into their routine teaching practices. This is one of the goals of EP (see Johnson (Reference Johnson, Johnson and Golombek2002) in Table 1), but it is clear that such integration may also be possible in action research projects; Valeri (Reference Valeri, Burns and Hood1997: 38), for example, notes that ‘the data collection soon became a part of the teaching/learning process whenever group work was done, rather than simply for the purposes of the research project’. This perhaps supports my earlier point that the differences between EP and action research need not be overstated.

Table 1

Ten examples of language teacher research.

One issue to emerge from this analysis – one which I will comment on in more detail – relates to the range of discourse conventions adopted in these different reports. At one end of the spectrum, Wang (Reference Wang2007) adopts a very academic stance in terms of content, structure, style and technical sophistication (e.g. use and reporting of statistics). In sharp contrast, Valeri (Reference Valeri, Burns and Hood1997) is a three-page summary of her investigation which provides hardly any methodological details and narrates the procedures in a more conversational manner. This contrast raises interesting issues about the nature of the boundaries, in representational terms, between teacher research and academic research; whilst reading Wang (Reference Wang2007), I did not intuitively feel it is in keeping with the ‘spirit’ of teacher research – and it is certainly not a paper that many classroom teachers would be able to engage with easily – yet the research was conducted by a language teacher interested in exploring the impact of a pedagogical intervention on his learners. Valeri's paper, on the other hand, while much more accessible to a readership of fellow professionals, does not allow readers to assess the extent to which her conclusions are sound.

The Language Teacher Research series and the collections from Oman also follow the conventional structure of a research paper. It might be felt that doing so demonstrates the rigour of teacher research and hence addresses common criticisms about its quality (see 2.7). A formal discourse in reports of teacher research may also encourage academics to read such reports; teachers though, at the same time, may be discouraged. Burns (Reference Burns1999) suggests that academic forms of writing may not be appropriate for disseminating teacher research, but the exclusive application of this strategy may work against improving communication between teachers and academics. In Section 3 I discuss the need for academics to make their work accessible to teachers; I see no reason why teachers should not at least be given the option of doing the same and telling their stories in terms academics can relate to more readily. The crucial issue is that reports of research – teacher research or otherwise – assume a form that is appropriate for the intended audience.

2.6 Benefits of teacher research

An extensive list of potential benefits of teacher research is proposed in the literature (e.g. Goswami & Stillman Reference Goswami and Stillman1987; Kemmis & McTaggart Reference Kemmis and McTaggart1988; Elliott & Sarland Reference Elliott and Sarland1995; Burns Reference Burns1999; Henson Reference Henson2001; Kincheloe Reference Kincheloe2003). For example, it has been claimed that teacher research:

• • develops teachers’ capacity for autonomous professional judgements (Lankshear & Knobel Reference Lankshear and Knobel2004);

• • reduces teachers’ feelings of frustration and isolation (Roberts Reference Roberts1993);

• • allows teachers to move out of a submissive position and be curriculum innovators (Gurney Reference Gurney and Lomax1989);

• • allows teachers to become more reflective, critical, and analytical about their teaching behaviours in the classroom (Atay Reference Atay2006);

• • makes teachers less vulnerable to and less dependent on external answers to the challenges they face (Donato Reference Donato2003);

• • fosters connections between teachers and researchers (Crookes Reference Crookes1993).

Olson's (Reference Olson and Olson1990: 17–18) list of six benefits enhances the prospective value of teacher research even further. According to her, it

• • reduces the gap between research findings and classroom practice;

• • creates a problem-solving mindset that helps teachers when they consider other classroom dilemmas;

• • improves teachers’ instructional decision-making processes;

• • increases the professional status of teachers;

• • helps empower teachers to influence their own profession at classroom, district, state and national levels;

• • offers the overriding and ultimate advantage of providing the potential for improving the educational process.

Some of these claims do have a somewhat idealistic or lofty ring to them, particularly when seen against the unfavourable conditions, vis-à-vis teacher research, that characterize many LT contexts worldwide. Nonetheless, broader analyses of teacher research initiatives in the USA and UK have reported positive findings. In the USA, Zeichner's review concluded that:

In the UK, the papers in Halsall (Reference Halsall1998) examine the benefits of teacher research for school improvement, while in her review of the work of a number of research-engaged schools in the UK, Sharp (Reference Sharp2007: 22) offered the similarly positive conclusion that

In LT, Nunan (Reference Nunan1989b: 3–4) cites (from Beasley & Riordan Reference Beasley and Riordan1981) a list of nine benefits of teacher-initiated research, ranging from the relatively concrete ‘it sharpens teachers’ critical awareness through observation, recording and analysis of classroom events and thus acts as a consciousness-raising exercise’ to the more fuzzy ‘it matches the subtle, organic process of classroom life’. More specific examples of the benefits of teacher research are reported in Edwards (Reference Edwards, Edwards and Willis2005: 261), who cites one teacher researcher's feelings of

The examples of language teacher research in Table 1 also refer to a range of benefits. These include enhanced teacher awareness (e.g. of learners’ views), improvements in their practices and new understandings of the impact (or lack thereof) of particular instructional strategies. Al-Mezeini (Reference Al-Mezeini and Borg2009), for example, became aware that explicitly teaching spelling rules did not necessarily improve learners’ spelling, while Taylor (Reference Taylor, Mitchell-Schuitevoerder and Mourão2006: 94) said that the study ‘helped me to relax about the students’ use of L1 and to see it as a useful diagnostic tool rather than as something detrimental to the students’ acquisition of English’. Almeida Ribeiro (Reference Almeida Ribeiro and Hadley2003) also suggests there were benefits for her learners, though evidence of these is limited in her report.

The benefits of teacher research have also been discussed in the context of teacher education. In initial teacher education in the USA, reviews of research have not found strong evidence of such benefits (e.g. Darling-Hammond et al. Reference Darling-Hammond, Hammerness, Grossman, Rust, Shulman, Darling-Hammond and Bransford2005; Grossman Reference Grossman, Cochran-Smith and Zeichner2005). The latter, for example, states that ‘although many teacher educators proclaim the value of various forms of practitioner research in preservice teacher education, we are still at the early stages of being able to bolster these claims with empirical evidence’ (p. 447). In LT, Burns (Reference Burns, Burns and Richards2009) provides a review of the use of action research in teacher education, while reports of specific initiatives and their impact are provided in a number of other sources (e.g. Brindley Reference Brindley and Sadtono1991; Thorne & Qiang Reference Thorne and Qiang1996; Crookes & Chandler Reference Crookes and Chandler2001; Beaven & Borg Reference Beaven and Borg2003; McDonough Reference McDonough2006; Reis-Jorge Reference Reis-Jorge2007; Atay Reference Atay2008; Kiely & Davis Reference Kiely and Davis2010). Collectively, this work points to ways in which a teacher research component can support language teacher growth and identifies the challenges this process raises, though these are issues where our empirical understandings remain emergent.

2.7 Critiques of teacher research

Despite the volume of claims presented above, a number of critiques of teacher research have been put forward. In education generally, Lieberman and Miller (Reference Lieberman, Miller, Hollingsworth and Sockett1994: 204) note that ‘there is a romantic and naïve quality . . . to the entire ambiance that surrounds teacher research’, while Huberman's (Reference Huberman1996) analysis questions the reliability of the investigative methods often utilized in teacher research, such as narratives. He also describes some claims about the benefits of teacher research as ‘legitimate arguments intermeshed with spleen’ (p. 127). Elliot and Sarland (Reference Elliott and Sarland1995: 373) list numerous criticisms of teacher research in relation to, for example, ‘the dominance of description over analysis in many accounts [and] the tendency in many accounts to adopt a narrowly technicist stance to the problems of pedagogical change’.

More recently, Brown's (Reference Brown2005: 399) discussion of initiatives in the UK to promote teacher research concludes that ‘a healthy scepticism has to be maintained about . . . some of its wilder claims for the effective resolution of educational problems’. Specific evaluations of some of the UK initiatives mentioned earlier also raise concerns about the quality of the research being conducted. Foster (Reference Foster1999), for example, analysed the reports produced by teachers involved in the Teacher Research Grant Pilot Scheme and concluded that some of the reports did not actually constitute research, but rather ‘personal descriptions of, or justifications for, their own practice; or accounts of their efforts to improve pupil achievement, or of their involvement in staff development activities’ (p. 383). He also expressed serious reservations about the validity of the findings in much of this research (but see Bartlett & Burton (Reference Bartlett and Burton2006) for a contrasting view).

Examining teacher research in LT more specifically, Dörnyei's (Reference Dörnyei2007: 191) view is that ‘there is one big problem with action research: there is too little of it’. I agree that, globally-speaking, engagement in research by language teachers is limited, but I have identified through this review numerous examples of teacher (and action) research and I would therefore challenge Dörnyei's somewhat dismissive summation. In relation to quality, Ellis (Reference Ellis2010: 189) says that ‘the methodological limitations that are evident in much teacher-research may make its findings of little value to the academe’, while another sceptical view within LT comes from Block (Reference Block2000: 138), who, with reference to action research, notes that ‘the entire enterprise is strong in theory but very difficult to carry out in practice’. The reasons for this, he suggests, are that in most teaching contexts teachers receive no compensation for the extra work that engaging in research involves. Additionally, he feels that the lack of impact on the field of the results of action research discourages teachers from engaging in it.

All criticisms of teacher research, of course, reflect particular views about the nature of research. Embedded in Block's critique is the assumption that action research should have findings that are more generally relevant for the field, but this is at odds with the view of teacher research as, primarily, a powerful strategy for local inquiry. The common criticism of teacher research that it is of poor quality, methodologically-speaking, is also often underpinned by conventional scientific notions of research (e.g. large-scale, replicable, quantitative).

Debates about the criteria which should be used to assess the quality of research highlight two general positions (Seale Reference Seale1999). One is a foundationalist position – that there should be one set of criteria for judging the quality of all types of research – the second is nonfoundationalist, arguing that different types of research require different criteria. Huberman (Reference Huberman1996), for example, argues that conventional criteria – e.g. to do with the provision of evidence and freedom from obvious bias – should apply to teacher research too. In LT, Nunan (Reference Nunan1997: 367) argues that the ‘key distinction should be not whether an activity is practitioner research or regular research but whether it is good research or poor research’, while Brumfit and Mitchell (Reference Brumfit and Mitchell1989b: 9) write that

Alternative criteria for assessing teacher research have been proposed. Bartlett and Burton (Reference Bartlett and Burton2006), for example, suggest that professional relevance is one criterion that enhances the validity of teacher research; I agree, but on its own this does not provide sufficient reassurance that an inquiry has been conducted in a trustworthy manner. Anderson and Herr (Reference Anderson and Herr1999: 15) describe several other types of validity which can be referred to in evaluating the quality of teacher research: outcome validity, process validity, democratic validity, catalytic validity, and dialogic validity. The third of these, for example, refers to ‘the extent to which research is done in collaboration with all parties who have a stake in the problem under investigation’. Again, this is valuable, but collaboration in itself does not a guarantee that an inquiry has been conducted systematically. A basic level of (not necessarily ‘scientific’) rigour must apply to the collection and analysis of data if teacher research is to generate understandings we can have confidence in. Burns’ comments (Reference Burns and Hinkel2005a: 250) on the quality of action research seem to acknowledge this and she argues that

Language teacher research can also be critiqued for its lack of a critical perspective (Crookes Reference Crookes1993): for having ‘goals that are more or less instrumental and/or that lack clear connections to larger social and political agendas’ (Cochran-Smith & Lytle Reference Cochran-Smith and Lytle1999: 20). In LT, despite claims that teacher research can function as a critical enterprise in which ‘localized teachers’ research can be conceptualized as knowledge that other teachers can draw from to understand and promote social change in their own schools and communities’ (Stewart Reference Stewart2006: 427), there has been scarce evidence of such critical practices. For example, based on his analysis of teacher research articles in ELT Journal, Kiely (Reference Kiely and Pawlak2008: 26) concludes that

The analysis in Table 1 above also highlighted the prevalence of a largely individualist and technicist orientation to teacher research which I would argue is representative in the field of LT.

A closer examination of the range of collections of LT research discussed in 2.5 leads to further critical observations. Firstly, many examples of teacher research (e.g. Borg Reference Borg2006c, Reference Borg2008b; Edwards & Willis Reference Edwards and Willis2005; Warne et al. Reference Warne, O'Brien, Syed and Zuriek2006) are dissertations produced for undergraduate or Master's degree programmes. Questions arise here, therefore, about potential tensions between academic requirements and the principles of teacher research. Reis-Jorge's (Reference Reis-Jorge2007: 415) experience of such tensions led him to conclude that if our goal is to promote teacher research ‘a formally designed research project produced to meet the criteria imposed by academic regulations may not be the most appropriate kind of project’ (see also Elliott & Sarland Reference Elliott and Sarland1995). The result of such tensions, too, may be inquiry where academic concerns override a focus on the meaningful and thoughtful exploration of classroom life. This is perhaps one criticism that could be levelled at some of the work from Oman (additionally, this work, through examples of methodologically-limited attempts to demonstrate causal links between teaching and learning, highlights difficulties which teachers often have in adapting an orientation to teacher research which focuses on understanding rather than proof). I am not suggesting that teacher research is wholly incompatible with academic study; we must, however, be mindful of the potential of the latter to transform teacher research into an exercise driven by largely instrumental goals. It is clear, too, that teacher research conducted as part of a university degree entails the kind of close supervision that practising teachers doing teacher research would not normally receive. This is actually one advantage of the academic model of teacher research, and highlights the central role that expert mentors can play in enabling teachers to sustain their engagement in teacher research.

There is also evidence to suggest that teacher research is often conducted by university language teachers rather than school teachers. For example, the ‘Language Teacher Research’ series published by TESOL consists of six volumes consisting of a total of 67 chapters (not counting the editors’ introductions); fifty-two of these are written by university language teachers or academics. And to return to the analysis of ELT Journal articles by Kiely (Reference Kiely and Pawlak2008) mentioned earlier, of the first ten authors in Kiely's list, all from Volume 57 (2003), six had a Ph.D., one was a Ph.D. candidate, one was a university lecturer with an MA, and one further paper was co-authored by a senior lecturer and a Ph.D. candidate. The final paper was written by a teacher recently graduated from a MA programme. I am not suggesting that higher formal qualifications disqualify one from doing and reporting teacher research. But one of my arguments in this review is that teacher research remains a minority activity for the bulk of the population of language teachers in schools. These are clearly not the individuals who are submitting papers to ELT Journal (they are actually more likely to be teachers such as those in Rainey (Reference Rainey2000), who found that over 75% of the 228 teachers she surveyed said they had never heard of action research). In the same vein, most contributions in Field et al. (Reference Field, Graham, Griffiths and Head1997) are by experts writing about teacher research rather than by teachers who are doing it. In reviewing the text Voices from the language classroom (Bailey & Nunan Reference Bailey and Nunan1996), Rubdy (Reference Rubdy, Bailey and Nunan1997: 277) makes the similar point that

Overall, then, an analysis of the relevant literature highlights a wide range of sometimes substantial criticisms of teacher research (see also Hammersley (Reference Hammersley1993) for a critical analysis of the arguments through which teacher research is sometimes justified). In LT, my analysis suggests that many of the teachers who engage in teacher research are university language teachers or are doing teacher research as part of a qualification. The work available also tends to be individualist and technicist (oriented to practical problem-solving) in nature. This picture presents a contrast to the rhetoric celebrating teacher research's many goals and potential benefits affecting all levels of the educational system from individuals to broader communities and educational policy; over 25 years on, Peeke's (Reference Peeke1984: 24) question remains relevant to our field: ‘If good reasons exist for teacher involvement in research, why is it not more common?’ This is, of course, a key question that underpins this review, particularly in relation to the many language teachers who remain unaware of and/or uninvolved in teacher research.

2.8 Teachers' and managers' perspectives on engagement in research

In education, a number of studies highlight teachers’ often negative attitudes to research and suggest that such attitudes can exert a powerful influence on the extent to which teachers are research-engaged (Shkedi Reference Shkedi1998; Everton, Galton & Pell Reference Everton, Galton and Pell2000, Reference Everton, Galton and Pell2002; McNamara Reference McNamara and McNamara2002; Ratcliffe et al. Reference Ratcliffe, Bartholomew, Hames, Hind, Leach, Millar and Osborne2004).

A growing body of research into language teachers’ conceptions of research is now also available (in addition to the work I discuss below, see Rainey Reference Rainey2000; Edwards Reference Edwards, Edwards and Willis2005; Reis-Jorge Reference Reis-Jorge2007; Barkhuizen Reference Barkhuizen2009). Early studies by McDonough and McDonough (Reference McDonough and McDonough1990) (a survey of 34 EFL teachers) and Brown et al. (Reference Brown, Knowles, Murray, Neu and Violand-Sanchez1992) (a survey of 607 ELT professionals, not all teachers) reported notions of research closely tied to quantitative and statistical methods and a general ambivalence (and in some cases cynicism) about the role of educational research in teachers’ professional lives. More recent work by Allison and Carey (Reference Allison and Carey2007: 70) examined the views about research of language teachers at a university in Canada; lack of encouragement and motivation to do research were commonly cited challenges to teachers’ efforts to engage in research, and one teacher was quoted as saying they were explicitly discouraged by ‘high ranking members of the university’ from ‘acting like professors and publishing research’. Borg (Reference Borg2006b, Reference Borg2007a, Reference Borgb, Reference Borgc, Reference Borg2009a) has also examined teachers’ conceptions of research through a series of studies involving over 2,900 language teaching professionals worldwide. Borg (Reference Borg2009a), for example, drew on the views of over 500 teachers in 13 countries and concluded that

This study also indicates that, where teachers said they were engaged in research, this was primarily for personal and professional reasons rather than due to external forces such as promotion or employer pressure.

While in the UK there has been substantial interest in the way school leaders can promote research engagement (e.g. Sharp et al. Reference Sharp, Eames, Sanders and Tomlinson2006), internationally there has been little research of this kind (Saha, Biddle and Anderson Reference Saha, Biddle and Anderson1995 is an exception here). Yet school leaders can exert a significant influence on the extent to which teachers engage in research and thus ‘an important aspect of many practitioner-research programmes is to also engage the senior management of organisations in the programme’ (Davies, Hamilton & James Reference Davies, Hamilton and James2007: 6). Borg's programme of research provides some insights into the conceptions of research held by language school leaders. One study of 208 directors of accredited English language schools in the UK highlighted a clear ambiguity among these individuals about the distinction between research on the one hand and reflective pedagogical practice or professional development on the other. For example, research was often seen to constitute activities such as reading practical teaching magazines, evaluating new coursebooks, attending workshops, and observing colleagues and talking about the lesson afterwards (Borg Reference Borg2007b). In another study, Borg (Reference Borg2008a) compared the views about research of directors and teachers working in 33 private language schools in 18 countries. Both groups saw research as a more academic activity; they also shared the view that their institutions did not constitute environments which were supportive of teacher research. The conclusion to this study was that respondents wanted to be more research-engaged, but that ‘existing structures, strategies and attitudes work against the development in centres [i.e. schools] of environments in which research can be a more central part of what teachers – and managers – do’ (p. 29).

2.9 Barriers to engagement in research

Various obstacles to teacher engagement in research have been alluded to so far. Table 2 summarizes a wide range of such barriers noted in the literature (Elliott Reference Elliott1991; Burton & Mickan Reference Burton, Mickan, Edge and Richards1993; McKernan Reference McKernan1993; Roberts Reference Roberts1993; Henson Reference Henson, Sikula, Buttery and Guyton1996; Burns Reference Burns1999; Rainey Reference Rainey2000; Hancock Reference Hancock, Soler, Craft and Burgess2001; McNamara Reference McNamara and McNamara2002; Borg Reference Borg, Beaven and Borg2003a, Reference Borgc, Reference Borg2006a, Reference Borg2008a, Reference Borg2009a; Worrall Reference Worrall2004; Barker Reference Barker2005; Denny Reference Denny2005; Edwards Reference Edwards, Edwards and Willis2005; Sharp et al. Reference Sharp, Eames, Sanders and Tomlinson2005; Atay Reference Atay2006; Rust & Meyers Reference Rust and Meyers2006; Allison & Carey Reference Allison and Carey2007; Barkhuizen Reference Barkhuizen2009; McKay Reference McKay, Burns and Richards2009).

Table 2

Barriers to teacher research.

Taken collectively, this analysis makes a powerful statement about why – especially in contexts where many of these factors co-exist – teacher engagement in research is not a feasible activity for so many language teachers. Although a lack of time is the most commonly cited reason by teachers for their lack of engagement in research, a wider range of interactive factors may clearly contribute (to different degrees across varying contexts) to this situation.

3.1 Teachers as consumers

A key argument in EBP is that teachers should be critical consumers of educational research, using it to inform their instructional decisions. In education generally, Shank and Brown (Reference Shank and Brown2007: 6) advise teachers that ‘educational research is for the benefit of the field as a whole, not just for a handful of specialists. That is why it is important for you to improve your skills as a consumer of research’. McMillan and Wergin (Reference McMillan and Wergin2010: v) also have as their focus engagement with research, and their rationale is that teachers ‘should not have to depend on others’ assessments of the credibility or usefulness of research; they should be able to read, critique, and evaluate research information themselves’.

In LT, Perry (Reference Perry2005: xi) argues that teachers ‘and others on whom research in applied linguistics has an impact need to be able to understand it to the point where they are able to evaluate recommendations based on such research’, while Brown (Reference Brown1988) and Porte (Reference Porte2002) both focus on developing language teachers’ ability to engage with quantitative research. Porte's book, for example, ‘seeks to answer a current need in the literature for a set of procedures that can be applied to the reading of quantitative research’ (back jacket).

One orientation shared by the texts mentioned so far is that they conceive of the process of reading research as a largely technical one. Thus they seek to facilitate engagement with research by promoting the knowledge and skills that teachers require in order to be critical consumers. However, while certain core competencies are clearly required when reading research, conceptualizing engagement with research in largely technical terms makes four erroneous assumptions. These are (1) teachers have access to published research; (2) teachers want to read published research; (3) teachers need to read published research; and (4) teachers have the time to read such material. All four apply to teachers engaged in formal study (and this is the audience the texts above will appeal to) but they do not hold true for the majority of language teachers in schools around the world. I discuss reasons why teachers do not read research below (3.3.2), but attitudinal barriers will constitute a major obstacle. And where this is the case, books which give teachers technical solutions to becoming better consumers of research (without addressing the attitudinal barriers) are not likely to make much difference. Even in supportive, collegial and structured contexts where teachers are committed to professional development, fostering dispositions in teachers that enable them to engage with research in ways that they find meaningful and of value presents significant challenges (see Kiely & Davis Reference Kiely and Davis2010).

3.2 Research knowledge and classroom practice

Critiques of EBP have claimed that it assumes that when teachers read research it will have a direct impact on their teaching. Hammersley (Reference Hammersley, Thomas and Pring2004b: 138), for example, argues that ‘there are substantial limitations on what research can offer to policy-making and practice’, and develops his position with reference to three points (see also Pachler (Reference Pachler2003) for critique from LT). Firstly, he argues that research knowledge is always fallible; second, that research knowledge usually takes the form of generalizations (but teachers need to make decisions in specific contexts); and third, that factual knowledge is never a sufficient determinant of good practice. He concludes that ‘professional practice cannot for the most part be governed by research findings – because it necessarily relies on multiple values, tacit judgement, local knowledge, and skills’ (p. 138). Cordingley (Reference Cordingley, Thomas and Pring2004: 83) also notes that, given the context-specific nature of instructional decision-making, ‘there will always be a skilled professional job to do in interpreting the relevance of and implications of evidence for a practitioner's own setting’. In response to such critiques, the term evidence-informed practice is often preferred to evidence-based; it still allows for a contribution of research knowledge to classroom practice without implying that this contribution is an unmediated one.

In LT, the work of Freeman (e.g. Freeman Reference Freeman, Bailey and Nunan1996; Freeman & Johnson Reference Freeman and Johnson1998) is often cited (see, for example, Rankin & Becker (Reference Rankin and Becker2006); Stewart (Reference Stewart2006)) in support of claims that second language acquisition (SLA) research has little to offer teachers; Freeman and Johnson (Reference Freeman and Johnson1998: 411) did write that ‘much current knowledge in SLA may be of limited use and applicability to practicing teachers’; however, interpretations of this statement have, I feel, been exaggerated (and made out of context). Freeman and Johnson themselves have since explained that ‘we do indeed value research in SLA and have always held that such knowledge needs to inform the work of language teachers' (Freeman & Johnson Reference Freeman, Johnson and Tedick2005: 30). SLA research is clearly a foundational area of knowledge for LT professionals, and this is not a point I want to contest here. My specific concern is with the dissemination and use of this knowledge in LT.

There is clearly an awareness in our field of the complex relationship between research knowledge and teaching (whether this is evident in practice, such as in the design of teacher education programmes, is another matter). Lightbown (Reference Lightbown2000: 454), for example, has noted that ‘SLA research findings do not constitute the only or even the principal source of information to guide teachers in their daily practice’, while more recently Ellis (Reference Ellis2010: 197) suggests that ‘SLA is best viewed as a body of technical knowledge that can illuminate pedagogically inspired questions’. There is no implication in the views expressed by these authoritative figures in SLA research that it should (or even can) be a major determinant of teachers’ practice (as Crookes (Reference Crookes1998) suggests, the impact of research on teaching is likely to be mediated rather than direct); indeed there is even some degree of consensus with the view that ‘simple prescriptions from researchers and theorists are not sufficient. Teachers need to evaluate such recommendations in light of their own situations and to determine what exactly they will be able to use in their classrooms’ (Clarke Reference Clarke1994: 21). This is an important shift in attitude from one which assumes that published research should directly inform practice to one which reflects more sophisticated understandings of teacher knowledge. Such a shift on its own, however, will have no impact on language teachers’ willingness to engage with research. That is, if academics agree that teachers should critically engage with research knowledge, but then fail to take steps to facilitate this engagement, we will have not really moved away from the historically prevalent academic view that ‘it is primarily the obligation of the recipients of our work . . . to understand the importance of, and to apply correctly, the findings we have so meticulously generated’ (Barone Reference Barone1995: 1). What is then also required is a commitment by academics to make their work more accessible to teachers. This is an issue I discuss further below (3.4).

3.3 Teachers' practices in engaging with research

There has been limited empirical work on language teachers’ practices in engaging with research and I discuss this here, together with relevant work in education more generally.

3.4 Enhancing teacher's engagement with research

Keeping in mind the provisos covered in 3.2, engagement with research can be of value to teachers in several ways. For example, it can help teachers:

• • make deeper sense of their work (new ways of seeing);

• • identify ideas to experiment with in their classroom (new ways of doing);

• • extend their discourse for discussing teaching (new ways of talking);

• • validate with a theoretical rationale what they already do (new ways of knowing);

• • examine their planning and decision-making processes (new ways of thinking).

These are substantial potential benefits. Our challenge, then, to give teachers a chance to experience such benefits, is to find ways of addressing the physical, practical, conceptual, linguistic and attitudinal barriers already noted to teacher engagement with research. We also need to develop a deeper understanding of the ways in which practical knowledge and research knowledge can be productively integrated.

One response to this challenge, educating teachers to be consumers of research, was discussed earlier (see 3.1). A second strategy for making research more accessible to teachers is the ‘implications’ section commonly found at the end of research papers (see Chapelle Reference Chapelle2007; Han Reference Han2007 for contrasting views on the value of such sections). I do not see this as a productive way of enhancing teacher engagement with research; most language teachers do not read research journals and the presence of ‘implications’ is not going to change that. More substantial measures are needed to support teacher engagement with research. To consider the forms these might take, I will now first review research on the features of research reports to which teachers seem to respond positively, then comment on examples of initiatives whose goal has been to increase teacher engagement with research.

4.1 Epistemological conditions

A commitment to teacher research engagement implies a particular epistemological stance (i.e. a view of what counts as knowledge, its origins and use). Such a stance is, thus, in a sense, a condition for teacher research engagement, and will be reflected in a general, if not unquestioning, acceptance of many of the following propositions:

• • naturally-occurring classroom events are a legitimate source of research knowledge about teaching and learning;

• • teachers are uniquely positioned to conduct systematic inquiry into teaching and learning;

• • as professionals, teachers must assume the role of generators of knowledge, not just consumers;

• • academic research cannot provide incontrovertible evidence on which teachers can reliably base their actions;

• • received knowledge is mediated by teachers’ cognitions and the socio-cultural contexts in which teaching and learning take place;

• • collaborations among teachers, and among academics and teachers create productive mutually-beneficial social spaces for knowledge creation;

• • knowledge generation by teachers, individually or collaboratively, has the potential to impact positively on learners, teachers and schools.

These assertions provide a powerful rationale for teacher research engagement; without denying the contribution that academic research can make in shaping what teachers know and what they do, teacher research is based on the belief that the kinds of insights which are likely to be most attuned to shaping teachers’ practices are those which derive from teachers’ own investigations of their work. The epistemological positions outlined above are reflected in the goals of long-established teacher research groups such as the Collaborative Action Research Network (CARN: see www.esri.mmu.ac.uk/carnnew and Somekh (Reference Somekh2010)).

4.2 Conditions for engagement in research

At a much more concrete level, three main domains influencing teacher engagement in research can be identified: the workplace, the teacher, and the project. These are summarized in Tables 3, 4 and 5. The prevalence of engagement in research by language teachers, then, is shaped by the multiple interactions (in ways that linear tables cannot represent) of factors across all three domains. These lists of conditions can be expressed as questions and used as the basis of a research engagement readiness audit – a strategy for examining the extent to which an environment conducive to teacher research engagement exists. I would argue that an audit of this kind might be an essential early stage in the design of initiatives aiming to promote language teacher research engagement.

Table 3

Workplace conditions.

Table 4

Teacher conditions.

Table 5

Project conditions.

4.3 Conditions for engagement with research

The conditions for engagement in research were discussed in detail in Section 3 of this review. To recap, teachers are more likely to be willing to engage with research and use it to explore and inform their practice when it is accessible – physically, conceptually, linguistically and practically – credible, useable, and interesting. In addition, teacher engagement with research is likely to impact more positively on teachers’ work where they

• • view published research as a source of enhanced understanding of their work, not as a direct solution to their problems;

• • are driven to seek out relevant research by an interest in exploring classroom issues of personal pedagogical relevance;

• • have assisted opportunities over time to integrate insights from reading with their existing pedagogical practices and theories.

The attitudinal dispositions which can facilitate teacher engagement in research (see Table 4) are of course also fundamental in shaping teachers’ engagement with it.