Trainee Teachers’ Perspectives
on Practitioner Enquiry
Amanda Nuttall and Caroline Tobbell
Institute of Childhood and Education, Leeds Trinity University
The Research Project
• Based around a final year module on an UG Primary
programme
• Tends to be a module students find challenging – but
we (course team) think it is a very valuable and useful
process for trainee teachers in their final year.
• We have made some changes over the years as there
are always challenges in delivery and timings etc.
Why practitioner enquiry?
“The best teachers… need a conceptual framework within which to think about
education, as well as practical professional knowledge and skills, informed by
relevant research findings, and an understanding of the ethical dimensions of their
work.” (Orchard and Winch, 2015, p.6)
In England we have a rich history of practitioner enquiry, embodied in the notion of
teacher-as-researcher, accredited to Stenhouse (1975) and indicated in more
recent discussions of practitioner enquiry (Menter et al. 2011; BERA-RSA, 2014;
Leat et al. 2014). These notions of the role of teachers challenge simplistic
constructions of teaching as craft, and normative assumptions around ‘best
practice’ which dominate current models of ITT and in-service teacher education in
England’s performative regime (Ball, 1997; Nuttall and Doherty, 2014; Nuttall, Finn
and Beckett, 2015; Beckett, 2016).
The module
• 20 credits
• Literature Review and Practitioner enquiry study
• Process introduced and modelled over 5 weeks – Sept. – Oct.
• Planning and meeting with tutors and class teachers – Oct. – Nov.
• Literature Review completed – Oct – Nov.
• Study undertaken during SBT preparation weeks in Nov. – Dec
• Meetings with tutors for support and for ethical authorisation.
Research Aims
• Investigate the perspectives’ of the trainee teachers in
more depth
• Triangulate it with outcomes from students’
attainment.
• Identify ways to develop the module.
Data collected
• Pre module survey
• Post module survey
• MEQ feedback
• Attainment outcomes
Pre-module responses
To what extent are you aware of
practitioner enquiry?
Have you been involved in any
practitioner enquiry projects?
(1= no awareness, 5 = very aware)
3%
1
Yes
2
No
3
4
5
97%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Our initial responses
• Scaffold design of enquiry project for
trainees
• Model what an enquiry project is (and
isn’t!)
• Provide guidance at distance for data
analysis and report writing through
video tutorials
Student outcomes
Student outcomes
Post-module responses
Has your knowledge and understanding of
practitioner enquiry changed over the
course of the module?
“I didn't even know what it was before the module.”
“I previously had little understanding of what it was,
now I know how it is used to inform practice.”
“It is not the tedious task I expected, instead it proved
informative, with findings that will effect my future
practice.”
31%
Yes
No
69%
“I imagined it to have been more in depth then [sic] it
was - this has encouraged me to think about using
practitioner enquiry in my work going forward.”
“It became clear that any results gained are only
minor and should only really form the basis of further
research or development, and that you should not
expect to see any major changes or improvements
straight away.”
What next?
Analysis of tutors’ perspectives alongside those of the
trainees to target specific areas for further development.
These potentially include:
• Increased support for literature review element
• Pre-reading tasks at end of Level 5
• Sharing WAGOLLs prior to module
• Labelling elements of practitioner enquiry earlier in the
programme
• Continuing to encourage practitioner enquiry in NQT and
RQT years
Decisions about the module
informed by trainees’ perspectives:
Its veryThe
time
consuming
and
although
Made
me
of a was
reflective
class
teachers
atmore
the
school
where I
greatdid
experience
as a student,
aability
full
thepractitioner
practitioner
enquiry
not seem
with as
andid
to link
time teacher
I strugglevalue
to see
I would
to particularly
it, how
perhaps
due to
theory
to practice.
find the
timepressures
to complete
such time
a project.
other
on their
and energy.
Any questions?
References
Ball, S. J. (1997). ‘Policy sociology and critical social research: A personal review of recent education policy and policy
research’, British Educational Research Journal, 23, 1, pp. 257–274
Beckett, L. (2016). Teachers and academic partners in urban schools: threats to professional practice. Oxon:
Routledge.
British Educational Research Association (BERA) – Royal Society Action and Research Centre (RSA). (2014). Research
and the teaching profession. Building the capacity for a self-improving education system. Final report of the BERARSA inquiry [Online]. Available from:https://www.bera.ac.uk/project/research-and-teacher-education [Accessed 28th
February 2017]
Leat, D., Lofthouse, R., & Reid, A. (2014). Teachers’ views: Perspectives on research engagement. Paper #7
commissioned for the BERA-RSA inquiry The role of research in teacher education: Reviewing the evidence interim
report [Onliner]. Available at: www.bera.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/BERAPaper-7-Teachers-ViewsPerspectives-on-research-engagement.pdf. [Accessed 28th February 2017]
Menter, I., Elliot, D., Hulme, M., Lewin, J., & Lowden, K. (2011). A guide to practitioner research in education. London:
Sage.
Nuttall, A. and Doherty, J. (2014). ‘Disaffected boys and the achievement gap: The ‘wallpaper effect’ and what is
hidden by a focus on school results.’ Urban Review, 46 (5), 800-815.
Nuttall, A., Finn, B. and Beckett, L. (2015). Teachers’ constructions of poverty effects: Their research evidence. Paper
presented at the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association, Belfast, 15-17 September.
Orchard, J. and Winch, C. (2015). IMPACT 22: What training do teachers need? Why theory is necessary to good
teaching. Salisbury: PESGB.
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann.