Educational Action Research

ISSN: 0965-0792 (Print) 1747-5074 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reac20

Engaging with research through practitioner

enquiry: the perceptions of beginning teachers
on a postgraduate initial teacher education
programme

Bethan Hulse & Rob Hulme

To cite this article: Bethan Hulse & Rob Hulme (2012) Engaging with research through
practitioner enquiry: the perceptions of beginning teachers on a postgraduate initial
teacher education programme, Educational Action Research, 20:2, 313-329, DOI:
10.1080/09650792.2012.676310

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2012.676310

Published online: 18 May 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4478

View related articles

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=reac20
Educational Action Research
Vol. 20, No. 2, June 2012, 313–329

Engaging with research through practitioner enquiry: the

perceptions of beginning teachers on a postgraduate initial teacher
education programme
Bethan Hulse and Rob Hulme*

Department of Education, University of Chester, Chester, UK

(Received 18 August 2010; final version received 16 February 2012)

This study focuses on the perceptions of student-teachers towards their engage-

ment in small-scale research projects undertaken whilst on a one-year postgradu-
ate initial teacher education programme. We present an institutional response to
national and international policy agendas regarding the place of research within
initial teacher education at master’s level, focusing on the role of practitioner
enquiry in facilitating a critical engagement with practice. The paper concludes
that practitioner enquiry offers a potentially powerful and illuminating way of
exploring emerging professional identity and asserting agency in beginning
teachers.
Keywords: master’s level; practitioner enquiry; initial teacher education

Introduction
The research presented here explores the perceptions of a group of Postgraduate
Certificate in Education (PGCE) student-teachers towards small-scale research under-
taken to achieve master’s-level (M-level) accreditation within a one-year secondary
PGCE programme in England.1 It was conducted at a moment during 2008/09 when
policy initiatives in England introduced the idea of M-level practice to teacher
education programmes (Training and Development Agency for Schools 2007). This
initiative provided a moment of optimism within teacher education research commu-
nities. In our institutional context, a relatively new university in the North West of
England, we welcomed the possibility that this seemed to open up for teacher educa-
tion programmes to engage in critical explorations of practice. It also coincided with
the development of a strategy to develop the capacities and opportunities for teacher
education colleagues to engage in and with research in their professional roles. We
were aided in this enterprise by broader discussions with colleagues through the Eco-
nomic and Social Research Council Teaching and Learning Programme (ESRC
TLRP)-funded Teacher Education Research Network in the North West of England
(McNamara et al. 2008; Murray et al. 2009).
In re-assessing our strategic goal for research development as a small collabora-
tive group of teacher educators and researchers, we sought to explore the impact of
small-scale research engagement on the formation of professional identity amongst
beginning teachers and on education. Whilst there has been some discussion within

*Corresponding author. Email: r.hulme@chester.ac.uk

ISSN 0965-0792 print/ISSN 1747-5074 online

Ó 2012 Educational Action Research
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2012.676310
http://www.tandfonline.com
314 B. Hulse and R. Hulme

teacher education circles on the role that enquiry can play in offering meaningful
definitions of and developing institutional responses to M-level on PGCE pro-
grammes, the way that practitioner enquiry is perceived by students themselves
remains an underexplored area. Our intention in examining the perceptions of the
student-teachers themselves was to explore the potential value of practitioner
research in their early professional development as a tool for developing a ‘con-
structively critical approach to practice’, as required by the national Standards for
Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) (Training and Development Agency for Schools
2007), within a school environment that often requires a high degree of unquestion-
ing conformity (Gleeson and Husbands 2001).
Our reading and interpretation of government policy on M-level provision led
us to formulate the following questions: to what extent can spaces be opened up
within postgraduate teacher education for meaningful research engagement? What
might the requirement for a ‘constructively critical approach to practice’ look like
on a one-year PGCE programme? Can limited research engagement lead to more
holistic understandings of professional knowledge? What can we learn from certain
European experiences of master’s-level teacher education?
In designing our original initiative in 2008, we were guided by notions of the
transgressive potential of practitioner enquiry as a means of developing a profes-
sional identity amongst student-teachers and establishing a link between practitioner
enquiry, research engagement (even on such a small scale and in a relatively con-
strained manner) and professional learning. As such, our position is informed by
that of Campbell and Groundwater-Smith (2009), Day (1999) and Zeichner (2003)
in arguing for the development of more ‘creative’ and ‘deliberative’ spaces within
the teacher education curriculum to facilitate, in the short term, a broader engage-
ment with research and, in the longer term, a richer and more meaningful experi-
ence of professional learning. Such learning can, as Petra Ponte (2009) highlights,
bring about an understanding of teaching as a moral and intellectual undertaking.
To do so, of course, requires risk-taking on the part of teacher educators, and stu-
dent-teachers themselves, in challenging the overwhelming drive for technicism and
the ‘real business’ of school.
Much of the debate about the role of practitioner enquiry in teacher education has
focused on the perennial question about the ‘oppositional divide’ between school and
university. The recent developments in policy and practice at M-level in England
have brought this into sharp focus once again. There is discussion about what M-
level engagement might look and feel like and an enduring impression that ‘M-level’
programmes in various guises recover possibilities for teacher research based on prac-
titioner enquiry and offer possibilities to address the ‘disenfranchisement’ of teachers
(Elliott 1991; McNamara 2002; Saunders 2004). Does M-level study at PGCE open
up the possibility of teacher research as a means of strengthening the link between
theory and practice and tackling the ‘two communities’ problem? MacLure (1996,
274), among others, has written of the ‘oppositional dilemmas’ between theory and
practice; between the personal and the professional; between the organisational cul-
tures of schools and the academy; between ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’ perspectives;
between the ‘scientific’ languages of research or scholarship, and the mundane dia-
lects of practice and everyday experience (McLaughlin 2007).
Our initiative began through discussion within our newly-formed small group of
researchers on how we might develop a broader research engagement on
programmes through seizing opportune moments presented by curriculum review.
 Educational Action Research 315

The ‘opportunity’ in this case was presented by our Faculty’s re-alignment of PGCE
programmes to the QAA (Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education) frame-
work for Higher Education Qualifications, which required institutions to assign a title
to their programme at either professional or postgraduate level. Programmes desig-
nated as ‘postgraduate’ were compelled to address the professional requirements set
out in the Standards for QTS whilst ensuring academic work is in alignment with the
Framework for Higher Education Qualifications in England descriptors for M-level
(Sewell 2007). In common with other PGCE programmes, student-teachers within
our institution were able to accrue 60 credits at M-level for their academic assign-
ments. Our common concern was that the separation of ‘QTS’ from academic post-
graduate study has the potential to emphasise the perceived division of school-based
work and university-based work, which can be a source of significant tension for stu-
dent-teachers. At that stage, the development of PGCE M-level programmes fore-
grounded long-standing debates surrounding the nature and purpose of initial teacher
education, particularly the role of research in supporting the development of critically
reflective practice, generating optimism about the possibilities for creating spaces for
broader research engagement.

Policy context: a master’s-level profession?

This optimism was, in part, founded on experiences of M-level developments in
northern European nations; notably Finland, where university-based M-level initial
teacher education programmes have been the only route into teaching for many
years. The notion of the teacher as ‘practitioner researcher’ (Kansanen 2010) under-
pins notions of professional pedagogy and features strongly in teacher education
programmes designed to prepare teachers for a professional role which, arguably,
bestows a greater level of professional autonomy than that enjoyed by teachers in
England.
There was and remains, however, a great variation in the way practitioners have
responded to government initiatives across Europe. Despite the tendency towards
convergence encouraged by the Bologna process, M-level initiatives in initial tea-
cher education vary considerably. In France, the ‘masterisation’ (Journal Officiel de
la République Francaise 2009) of teacher education has marginalised university fac-
ulties of education (Instituts Universitaires de la Formation des Maitres [IUFM]), a
decision that has created some political controversy in French higher education con-
cerning where teacher education ought to be situated. A report by the French Minis-
try of Education revealed that a significant number of secondary school teachers in
their first year of teaching were ‘in difficulty’ (La Direction Générale des Ressourc-
es Humaines 2010, 11), prompting President Sarkozy to announce a review of the
induction year arrangements (19 January 2011, cited in Le Cafe Pedagogique
2011). The Director of the IUFM has argued that the failure of this policy is due to
the diminished role of the IUFM in supporting trainee teachers in the development
of a reflective approach to professional practice (J.L. Auduc, cited in Le Cafe Peda-
gogique 2011).
Interpretations of the somewhat nebulous notions of ‘Master’s’-level study
inspired by European initiatives are of course, country, region and context specific.
The interpretation of M-level teacher education depends on the history and culture
of the countries concerned, and what is embedded differs greatly depending on the
dynamics of national policy communities. The traditional position of teacher
316 B. Hulse and R. Hulme

education within higher education differs within the examples offered. In France, a
very conventional emphasis on academic knowledge has marginalised debates about
professional knowledge and, in common with recent moves in Sweden (Goodson
and Lindblad 2010), teacher education has been fragmented and placed within uni-
versity subject disciplines. In these two examples, research engagement within con-
temporary domestic policy is about subject knowledge engagement. In contrast, the
Finnish example reflects a strong underpinning of practitioner research in profes-
sional education, not just for teachers but also for social workers and health work-
ers. There is a very different approach to developing evidence bases for good
practice in public services and a different tradition of public service management.
Within our own programme, practitioner research was developed within and
constrained by the policy content of teacher education in England in the first decade
of the twenty-first century.
In England, the spirit of enquiry that we perceived as a requirement for M-level
work does not sit easily with normative controls over initial teacher education that
ensure student-teachers conform to accepted approaches to practice. Whilst the
current QTS Standards require student-teachers to have a ‘creative and construc-
tively critical approach towards innovation’, the reality is that schools expect them
to be able to apply national frameworks, policies and strategies that leave little
room for innovation. The challenge for initial teacher education programmes, then,
is to prepare beginning teachers for a working environment dominated by centra-
lised initiatives, whilst encouraging critical reflection and nurturing a positive
professional identity.
However, during the last three years of the previous Labour administration, steps
had been taken to initiate M-level study within initial teacher education. Engage-
ment with research in the broadest sense appeared to be an important indicator for
demonstrating ‘M-ness’. Such moves were avowedly intended to ensure compliance
with European policies to re-enforce the academic rigour of teacher education and
enhance the status of the profession. Since May 2010 the Coalition government has
developed a new take on this agenda through the recently formulated White Paper
on the future of teacher education (The Importance of Teaching; Department for
Education 2010), which again raises key questions for education researchers and
teacher educators about the location and content of teacher education beyond 2012.
The new government’s approach to ‘M-ness’ is located in a traditional concern with
workplace learning. This, in part, continues a long-standing trajectory of policy on
technicism and increasing teacher productivity (Soulsby and Swain 2003).
The White Paper cites the example of Finland in the proposal to develop ‘train-
ing or teaching schools’, without revealing any awareness of the distinctive
approach to research involved in Finnish professional education.
The government proposes reforming the Master’s in Teaching and Learning ini-
tiative, the inception of which helped to frame our understandings in 2008. Yet, in
2011 a deeper uncertainty surrounds the nature of the relationship between teacher
education and the university sector. There is, to a limited degree, a consistency in
language between the previous Labour administration and the Coalition. The lan-
guage of ‘freedom, fairness and responsibility’ (HM Government 2010) is very
close to that of Labour’s ‘new professionalism’. However, the new administration
does not appear to be minded to follow the advice of the all party select committee
on education which had, in February 2010, emphasised the importance of the links
between university-based expertise and research engagement and initial teacher
 Educational Action Research 317

education, warning of a ‘self-perpetuating cycle of teacher ignorance’ if training is

cut off from the ‘theoretical input’ of the university (House of Commons, Children,
Schools and Families Select Committee 2010, 26), or the recommendations of an
unlikely ally in the national OFSTED inspectorate to retain university-based teacher
education programmes. At a time of reform in initial teacher education and contin-
uing professional development (CPD), it is worth highlighting the creative and
empowering impact of action research conducted by enthusiastic beginners and the
positive effects of taking ownership of learning even through such small-scale pro-
jects. In what follows, we suggest that an enquiry-based approach to teacher educa-
tion offers an alternative to the often perfunctory and unimaginative CPD
programmes on offer to teachers in schools. Recent studies (Opfer and Pedder
2010; Earley 2010) point to deficiencies in existing ‘M’-level CPD programmes
where opportunities for teachers to engage in CPD that is ‘classroom based,
research informed and collaborative’ are rare (Opfer, Pedder, and Lavicza 2008,
19). Our intention was to present students with an alternative approach to their own
professional development to that which they are likely to encounter in school.

Practitioner enquiry for ‘M’-level: an institutional response

We sought to develop the use of practitioner enquiry within our programme at a
moment when ways were being felt towards an appropriate research engagement
for PGCE student-teachers. This was not just about the Training and Development
Agency for Schools standards. A series of policy initiatives under the Labour
administration appeared to resonate closely with emphases in public service reform
since 2008. The government issued policy directives on ‘new professionalism’ and
‘integrated working’ that talked of ‘unleashing the creativity of the workforce’ in
education and health (HM Government 2009). Whilst such initiatives seemed to
suggest a new creative freedom to explore professional identities (Hulme, Cracknell,
and Owens 2009), it also carried assumptions about additional responsibilities for
broader professional engagement. Within our institutional context, we determined
that engagement with small-scale practitioner enquiry was an ideal way to explore
uncertainty in identity, to empower beginning professionals to explore their own
roles and those of fellow professionals and finally, but perhaps most significantly, to
engage with broader education research.
The challenge for us in framing this task was to respond to and reconcile the
critical and enquiring approach required by M-level study with the ‘practicality
ethic’ that acts as the yardstick by which effective practice is measured in school
(Doyle and Ponder 1977). In their study of beginning teachers, Raffo and Hall
(2006, 55) draw on situated learning theory to explain why the ‘practicalities’ of
the school experience overshadow the university’s ‘theory based exhortations’. It is
school, not university, which provides the social context where student-teachers
make their own meanings and develop their professional identity. They point out
that whilst school becomes, for the beginning teacher, the ‘powerful domain’ within
which they develop skills and knowledge that are pertinent to the classroom, the
actual school environments in which they find themselves vary in their effectiveness
in supporting development. The student-teacher’s professional identity is driven by
the need to ‘fit in’, or to find a match between their ‘habitus’ – as expressed though
their values, orientations, dispositions and behavioural traits (Bourdieu and Passeron
1977) – and the culture and ethos of the school.
318 B. Hulse and R. Hulme

Framing the research task

Student-teachers were required to design a pedagogical intervention in response to a
problem they had identified in their own practice, and to evaluate its effectiveness.
They were directed to select an aspect of pedagogy specific to their subject special-
ism for analysis and to critically engage with theory. They developed their enquiry
in consultation with their mentor in school and during ongoing discussions with
their peer group and tutors in university. The direct involvement of school mentors
in supporting student-teachers in their M-level work created an opportunity for dia-
logue to take place between school and university where a shared understanding of
what constitutes professional knowledge could be constructed. Given that time is
short on the PGCE and that two-thirds of the student-teachers’ time is spent in
school, this support was essential. The research proposal is, of necessity, submitted
very early on in the course at a stage when everything is new and unfamiliar to
them. Students need individual support and advice from mentors and tutors to assist
them in framing research questions and designing an intervention.
In order to meet the criteria for M-level, students must demonstrate ‘self direction
and originality in tackling and solving problems’ and an ability to ‘deal with complex
issues systematically and creatively’ (Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Educa-
tion 2008). A key aspect of the research task, addressing these criteria, was the
requirement that students frame their own research questions and seek creative and
original solutions. They were encouraged to choose an area of research that excited
their curiosity and to be innovative in designing their pedagogical intervention.
Our view of the process of learning to teach is informed by socio-constructivist
pedagogical principles where the human mind is viewed as agentive, problem ori-
ented and constructional (Bruner 1986). In encouraging beginning teachers to ask
their own questions, they are invited to problematise their own learning and to seek
solutions through critical reflection and through in-depth study of theoretical read-
ings. Paulo Freire puts forward the case for developing teacher education pro-
grammes that encourage ‘epistemological curiosity’ through engagement with
complex theoretical readings. He argues that, whilst student-teachers might find
such an approach demanding, it is the role of the teacher educator to awaken their
curiosity and to create ‘pedagogical spaces where students become apprentices in
the rigours of exploration’, without which teachers become de-skilled (Freire and
Macedo 1995, 53). The introduction of M-level study has given greater prominence
to the development of practice that is informed by research. The M-level descriptors
state that students should develop a conceptual understanding that enables them to
critically evaluate current research. However, the challenge for teacher education
programmes is to design tasks which help student-teachers perceive a unity between
theory and practice, and draw together the worlds of university and school.
We sought to frame the task in a way that would assist students in making sense
of what it means to be ‘critical’ in the context of their own practice. Through
exploring and criticising accepted pedagogical practices within their subject area,
student-teachers may develop the capacity to question the theoretical assumptions
upon which a particular aspect of pedagogy is based. We intended that this experi-
ence would be ‘transformative’ in terms of developing a sense of identity and an
ability to adapt to change. Zeichner (2003) identifies several conditions under which
action research becomes transformative. It should be respectful of teacher knowl-
edge and create a culture of enquiry, be self-directed but occur within a safe and
 Educational Action Research 319

supportive group environment. Zeichner also found that ‘intellectual challenge and
stimulation’ (2003, 319) was a key dimension. Undoubtedly, student-teachers can
find this approach demanding as it challenges their preconceived ideas about ‘tea-
cher training’; it requires of them a deeper philosophical understanding of how
change in their own practice is effected through a systematic exploration and inter-
rogation of accepted practice.
Writing about developments in enquiry-based models of teacher education in
Scotland, Livingstone and Shiach (2009) point out that this model demands a radi-
cal shift in student-teachers’ thinking. In an English context, and in our institution,
it also demanded a new approach from course tutors, most of whom had little prior
experience of teaching on M-level programmes and, in common with many teacher
educators, were not themselves experienced researchers (Murray and Male 2005).
The development of a collaborative team of teacher educators supported by a career
researcher was crucial to the development of practitioner enquiry within the PGCE
programme. Central to this was the development of a research methods component
that introduced the theoretical context for practitioner enquiry and offered guidance
on appropriate methods, ethics and action research design. The sharing of research
expertise within the faculty has also assisted tutors in developing what Cochran-
Smith and Lytle (1999) refer to as ‘knowledge of practice’, resulting in a shift in
emphasis from transmission models of teacher education to providing student-teach-
ers with the methodological knowledge they need to study their own practice (Ponte
2009, 75).

Research methods
The research was undertaken over the course of one academic year by the PGCE
Modern Languages (ML) subject leader and the Head of Research at the Faculty.
Our research methods relate to action research processes in that our aim was to gain
an understanding of the experiences of our own students in order to develop our
programme. In so doing we were also demonstrating to our students that we have a
critical engagement with our own practice, and as such, present good role-models
as reflective practitioners (Lunenberg, Korthagen, and Swennen 2007).
To gather a range of student perspectives across all subjects, questionnaires were
collected from 80 PGCE students (representing 60% of the whole cohort) who were
attending a lecture. All 80 submitted anonymous responses, and the focus group
participants also completed the questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed to
elicit their views on the value of practitioner research both in their current situation
and in their future careers. They were also asked to indicate the title of their practi-
tioner enquiry and to list their three main reasons for selecting it. Closed questions
that enabled us to ascertain whether they had found the experience broadly positive
or negative were supplemented by spaces for free comment whereby deeper percep-
tions could be explored. The questionnaire data were gathered in February, at the
time when they had just completed their practitioner enquiry in school but prior to
the submission of their research report.
In order to explore how a critical approach to practice might be framed within a
particular subject group, we invited six student ML student-teachers to participate
in focus group discussions. The students were selected as being representative of
the PGCE ML cohort and ranged in age from 23 to 37. They included two non-
native speakers of English and one male. Two were recent graduates and three were
320 B. Hulse and R. Hulme

mature students who had previously had successful careers in industry. Data were
gathered from two focus group interviews; the first just after they had completed
their research in their placement schools, and the second when their assignment
marks had been returned to them.
The questions posed to the focus group were designed to elicit their perceptions
of the role of practitioner enquiry within their M-level studies in developing their
professional practice and identity. They were specifically asked the following ques-
tions: Did your research go as planned? Did you learn anything from the experience
and if so, what? Do you think it is a good idea to include this type of pedagogic
enquiry as part of a PGCE? Do you think you might undertake similar enquiries
into your own teaching when you are a qualified teacher?
The questions enabled focus group participants to explore and articulate ways in
which the small-scale research projects they had been involved in had helped to
change their approach by articulating and reflecting upon their own practice and to
consider what the major sticking points had been.
Two ML subject mentors were interviewed regarding their involvement in
supporting their student-teacher’s research, and their views of practitioner enquiry
in developing their practice. All of the interviews were transcribed and analysed
using thematic network analysis (Attride-Stirling 2001).

Findings
Thematic analysis of interview transcriptions and questionnaire responses brought a
number of themes to the fore. The data emerging from both the interviews and the
questionnaires shared common themes and there were no notable differences
between subject groups.

Emerging themes
The value of practitioner research in early professional development
There was clear evidence that our student-teachers felt that engagement in practi-
tioner enquiry had facilitated their professional learning, with 90% of questionnaire
respondents agreeing that they had learned something from the experience.
Although 32% of our students said that they had found the experience ‘negative’,
most agreed that it had, nevertheless, been of benefit to them. The main sticking
point was a lack of time rather than a lack of benefit, reflecting the lack of delibera-
tive space for research engagement within English teacher education. A number of
student-teachers said that they had initially felt apprehensive about engaging in
research, but were positive about the final outcome. Whilst our research was framed
by our understanding of research engagement in other countries, notably Finland
and Scotland, the limitations of our experiment and the constraints experienced by
all those engaged became evident. A small minority stated that they did not feel
that practitioner enquiry was relevant to the development of their practice. A num-
ber of these students already had master’s degrees in their subject discipline and
seemed to have difficulty accepting action research as a valid method of enquiry. A
recent study of teachers on master’s programmes in the USA also found similar
resistance, particularly amongst science graduates (Bryant and Bates 2010).
 Educational Action Research 321

Fostering a critical and creative approach to practice

It was evident from the wide range of topics chosen that student-teachers were
willing to experiment with innovative approaches to the teaching of their specialist
subject. Of the 102 assignments examined for the purpose of this investigation,
about one-quarter had chosen to focus on topics currently fashionable in UK
schools such as Assessment for Learning, learning styles/kinaesthetic approaches
and the use of information and communications technology, which was the most
popular choice. However, the majority had devised interventions that were original
and sprang from personal interest as opposed to ‘whole-school’ agendas. In select-
ing a particular research topic, student-teachers focused principally on its relevance
to enhancing their own practice. We took this to reflect, in part, an understanding
of the value of action research as we had presented it to them. Of student-teachers
who gave a reason for their choice, 27% said they wanted to improve pupils’ learn-
ing, 17% cited the development of their own teaching skills and understanding, and
19% said they were motivated by a personal interest in the topic.
Despite the constraints that we have acknowledged, there is evidence that the
practitioner enquiry encouraged student-teachers to explore beyond the parameters
of current practice, and possibly to understand that to develop new ideas it is neces-
sary to transgress accepted boundaries:

It provides an opportunity to explore subjects which would not necessarily be covered

otherwise. (Questionnaire comment)

Drama teaching will only evolve if new enquiries are carried out. (Questionnaire
comment)

Teacher educators are often wary of allowing student-teachers a completely free

choice in selecting areas of research. However, our data suggest that such concerns
are unfounded. Student-teachers valued the measure of control over their own learn-
ing afforded to them by having a free choice in selecting their research area:

It was good because you had control of it. It was your own little mini project. (Focus
group participant L)

In her recent study of the impact of action research on teacher identity, Karen
Goodnough (2011, 83) concludes that research activity becomes meaningful to an
individual when they are able to choose for themselves what they want to explore
and how. We found no evidence that having a free choice was detrimental to the
performance of our student-teachers. One-half of those achieving lower marks and a
small number who did not meet the M-level assessment criteria had selected areas
linked to school strategies. A more significant factor in students’ success was their
ability to keep their research firmly focused on a specific intervention into their
own teaching. An investigation into the use of text-based resources to teach about
the Holocaust, for example, and another on the use of active learning strategies in
teaching probability at Key Stage 3 mathematics, demonstrated commendable
research engagement. In contrast, Student-teacher A, who did not meet the M-level
assessment criteria, notes that he did not focus on an intervention into his own
practice, but got sidetracked by policy constraints beyond his control:
322 B. Hulse and R. Hulme

I think I was quite confused. My intervention got to a certain point and I thought: ‘I
can’t go any further with this unless I am Director of Education’.

The scope of the project needs to be really focused. You have to choose something
you get a result with. (Student-teacher A)

Student-teacher A expressed regret that he had not chosen a different topic,

although another member of the focus group had received a good mark for her
enquiry into the same area. His point that he was required to submit the research
proposal too early in the course is echoed by some questionnaire respondents (7%).
Tutors have been able to respond to these points by giving clearer guidance on
maintaining a clear focus on one’s own practice and delaying the submission date
for the proposal by a few weeks.

Linking school-based and university-based learning

The role of mentors in supporting student-teachers’ research is key in bridging the
gap between school and university. Reflecting on our work in the wake of The
Importance of Teaching, our data in this area take on a broader significance. The
majority (60%) of students found it ‘easy’ to conduct their enquiries, citing school
support as the main reason. The main impediments related to scheduling their
research to fit in with school and the problem of a lack of time was cited by 32%
as the main difficulty. Only a minority (12%) said that their schools were unsup-
portive. One student-teacher, who rated his experience of researching effective ques-
tioning techniques in science as being ‘very positive’, cites the support of his Head
of Department as being key to his success:

My HOD was responsive and supportive … he thought it was a good topic for me to
research as it is vital in science. (Questionnaire comment)

There is evidence that mentors encouraged innovation and viewed the practitioner
enquiry as valuable, in terms of both the student-teacher’s professional development
and the contribution made to the knowledge base of the department.
Student-teacher F, who set up a website where pupils could share their work,
comments:

It was really enjoyable. It was great because I had the support of my mentor because
nothing had been done at the school, so it was all open actually. I had a blank page to
fill.

Her mentor comments:

It was a very innovative ICT project with Year 9 students using wikis … The students
were very receptive because it was not the regular stuff they do on computers … We
were all impressed; it gave us an incentive to be more innovative in the ICT room.

It forced her to look outside the boundary, to come up with something which was not
in the scheme of work. (Interview with Mentor C)
 Educational Action Research 323

Peer collaboration
The enquiry task created opportunities for student-teachers to work collaboratively
with each other and with other teachers, and encouraged them to extend their range
of experience outside their own classrooms:

I felt my partner and I collaborated well and found the entire project to be more fun
than work. (Questionnaire response)

You form new relationships as well. Like, I have spoken to people who are liaising
with primary schools which I may not have if I hadn’t done this. (Focus group partici-
pant L)

Reflecting on the experience in 2011, it is clear that the initial project carried a
novelty in terms of opening up new dialogues between all those involved. This
has resulted in greater involvement by teacher education colleagues in faculty-
based research activities, particularly Readers and Writers groups. However, only
the coordinators have gone on to develop further structured enquiries from this
work.

Agency: constructing professional knowledge

The practitioner enquiry was instrumental in bringing about changed views of
practice amongst students:

It makes us more aware of what is going on in the classroom and not afraid to
try something new to help pupils progress … after doing my research and bringing
in more interactive things, I have changed the way I teach. (Focus group partici-
pant Y)

This (enquiry) is obviously going to help us, because what I see is that things change
so much within teaching … there is so much that wasn’t done before, so no-one
knows what is going to happen in the future … I want to make sure that I have all
the tools. (Focus group participant F)

By conducting an enquiry of their own design, they had acquired a level of exper-
tise in a particular area, which they considered worth sharing with others. Student
K, who implemented her own scheme for using phonics in teaching Spanish,
comments:

All the teachers that supported me said they hadn’t looked at that before, but because
I introduced that element, they could see how it could work.

A strong sense of belonging emerges through feeling they have made a useful con-
tribution to professional knowledge through their research, which impacts positively
upon their self-confidence:

It makes you feel like you belong. You fit in somewhere because we have done this
research and it’s not just a pointless exercise … I have contributed to that school and
I could contribute to any school I work in. It puts you on that step of ‘I actually am a
teacher’. (Focus group participant Y)
324 B. Hulse and R. Hulme

I think this project helps improve our confidence … When you have done something
on your own and you have tried it on pupils and it works, it is building your confi-
dence … It contributes a lot to being a teacher. (Focus group participant F)

We conclude there is evidence that the experience of conducting an enquiry had

a positive impact on student-teachers’ emerging professional identities. Recent work
has put forward the view that the formation of professional identity is of central
importance in the process of learning to teach. McNally (2006) notes the promi-
nence of emotional–relational dimensions of the experiences of newly qualified
teachers and the impact of this on their emerging professional identities. Referring
to research undertaken by Day et al. (2007), he infers that the early months and
years of teaching may be crucial to identity formation (McNally 2006, 4). We con-
tend it is important that early experiences of teaching should nurture within student-
teachers a perception of themselves as agentive creators of professional knowledge,
as opposed to consumers of pre-determined professional knowledge.
Our students were able to articulate a view of professional knowledge that is
not fixed but in a process of continual construction and re-construction within a
professional learning community (McLaughlin et al. 2006) and saw themselves as
active contributors in the construction of that knowledge:

Other teachers were asking for my materials, to do the same in their classes, as they
could see it was working … so you feel you have contributed something. We showed
the results to the department and said ‘we need to do something about that’. (Focus
group participant Y)

Drawing on the work of Karl Popper (1972), Petra Ponte (2009, 74) explains how
connections can be made between the worlds of ‘concrete action’, that of personal
experience and the world of concepts, theories and abstractions through the study of
one’s own practice. Acknowledging the deficiencies of both (practical) ‘academic
learning in situated cognition’ and (theoretical) ‘academic learning as imparted
knowledge’ (Laurillard 1993 in Ponte 2009), she makes a case for the kind of profes-
sional knowledge that enables people to respond to a swiftly changing world. What
emerges from this is the ‘simultaneous construction and application of professional
knowledge’ as a cyclical process where, ‘professionals apply knowledge, gather
information, interpret that information and thereby construct new knowledge’.
According to Ponte, it is the ability to de-contextualise experiences and conceptualise
them that provides student-teachers with a capacity to look critically at new develop-
ments. ‘Abstractions’ (which she defines as descriptions of reality) can greatly assist
the professional in going beyond their immediate experiences in order to effect a
transformation in perception. Our students understood that ‘standing back’ from their
practice and theorising it enabled them to gain insights, although they found this
challenging.

Laying the foundations for further M-level study

Although the majority of our students understood the relevance of M-level enquiry
to their developing practice, they expressed concern regarding the pressure to gain a
master’s qualification early in their career. We again reflected on the constraints
within PGCE programmes in noting that 41% expressed the view that it would be
better to wait until they had gained more classroom experience:
 Educational Action Research 325

We are taking two things that are really hard on their own and we are putting them
together … master’s level assignments and planning teaching … You have to be super-
man and superwoman to become a teacher these days. (Focus group participant C)

I will have to study a master’s; I don’t want to fall behind.

The empowering potential of action research was evident in responses which indi-
cated that theorising practice had opened up possibilities for students to engage in
further subject-based research:

If you had said to me ‘you are going to do a Masters after your undergraduate
degree’, I would have said ‘no way’, but now I will. (Focus group participant)

There was evidence that that the practitioner enquiry provided them with an accessi-
ble approach to M-level work, as shown in the following comments from focus
group participants:

It’s such a far cry from a normal bachelor’s degree that when you are told suddenly
that you are writing at master’s level, it’s that fear of ‘can I actually do it?’, but with
the pedagogical enquiry, you didn’t see it like that.

The master’s level interacted with the classroom level so when you wrote it up, it
didn’t feel like you were writing at master’s level. It was more natural to reflect
critically because it was something you were passionate about.

Conclusion
A study of this size and scope can only begin to offer limited evidence that engage-
ment with and participation in research as an elective activity can open up spaces
for beginning teachers to assert their agency in exploring their professional identi-
ties. Relatively free from the cultural constraints of experienced teachers, they are
more open to the possibilities of reflexive enquiry. This may create more positive
conditions for collaborative relationships and partnerships to develop between
student-teachers, university tutors and school mentors.
The data presented here suggest that, within our context, practitioner enquiry is
an effective way of promoting the constructively critical approach to practice
required of the QTS Standards and addressing the academic requirements of
M-level work within the context of the PGCE. Because their research is embedded
within the context of school, student-teachers are able to make meaningful links
between theory and practice. A positive attitude towards critical enquiry is fostered
by giving student-teachers the space to ask their own questions. The sense of
empowerment that is derived from being able to seek and find answers to their
problem, and to share their knowledge with others, feeds a positive self-image as a
legitimate member of a professional community.
The collaboration between mentors, university tutors and student-teachers neces-
sitated by the practitioner enquiry promotes a healthy relationship between school
and university, where neither ‘practicality’ nor ‘theorising’ has dominance. The
student-teachers involved in this study did not appear to experience any conflict
between ‘university work’ and ‘school work’, but were able to experience critical
engagement in a natural way. Practitioner enquiry can offer a potentially powerful
326 B. Hulse and R. Hulme

means of stimulating an intellectual curiosity about professional practice that can

counterbalance the ‘de-professionalising practicalism’ (Goodson 2003, 131) which
can limit trainee teachers’ critical engagement.
There is much at stake if we fail to offer beginning teachers spaces to develop
‘epistemological curiosity’, to innovate and to use their individual talents. Ross
(2001) in Goodson (2003) draws attention to research undertaken into the reasons
why teachers choose to leave the profession:

Three fifths of all teachers taking up work outside the profession do not find that teach-
ing allows them to be creative and resourceful. These factors used to be one of the key
elements of the teaching profession: people joined the profession because it used to offer
them autonomy, creativity and the ability to use one’s initiative … The way in which
teaching has become managed, has become accountable and has been subjected to
control and direction have contributed to demotivation. (Goodson 2003, 83)

Within our study, the university plays a key role in promoting a critical approach to
practice in creating opportunities and spaces where beginning teachers can ‘define
their own questions about their practice and that of others’ (Hulme and Cracknell
2009). However, such an approach must be fought for within the higher education
sector. The reduced role of the university in the proposed M-level programmes has
raised concerns that a ‘narrow focus on existing practice’ may lead to a devalued
qualification (House of Commons, Children, Schools and Families Select Commit-
tee 2010, 109). We suggest M-level engagement offers a potential site for a shared
exploration of practice provided equal partnerships can be established. If the possi-
bilities of practitioner enquiry suggested above are to be achieved, then university
Faculties of Education must be open to making and re-making their collaborative
relations with school partners and to structuring their teacher education in a manner
that is sufficiently flexible to enable beginning teachers to develop an intellectually
rigorous approach to their classroom practice through asking their own questions.
As we face the prospect of significant reform, it has never been more important
for us to consider that student-teachers need to enter the profession with a habit of
approaching their developing practice with intellectual rigour. We conclude that it is
vital they are given meaningful and sustainable ways to achieve this. Our study
reinforces the point that practitioner enquiry is a powerful means of effecting a syn-
thesised and coherent experience for student-teachers that allows an engagement
with practice which is genuinely critical and creative and which is situated within
the classroom.

Note
1. References to ‘M’-level engagement within the authors’ institutional context are framed
by policy documentation produced by the Training and Development Agency (2007) in
England and the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (2008) Framework for
Higher Education Qualifications in England. The article makes more generic references
to ‘M’-level and ‘M’-ness in acknowledgement of the ongoing debate across Europe,
inspired in part by the Bologna process, about the place of research engagement within
provision of postgraduate teacher education at master’s level.
 Educational Action Research 327

References
Attride-Stirling, J. 2001. Thematic networks: An analytic framework for qualitative research.
Qualitative Research 1, no. 3: 385–404.
Bourdieu, P., and J.C. Passeron. 1977. Reproduction in education, society and culture.
London: Sage.
Bruner, J. 1986. The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bryant, J., and A. Bates. 2010. The power of student resistance in action research: Teacher
educators respond to classroom challenges. Educational Action Research 18, no. 3:
305–18.
Campbell, A., and S. Groundwater-Smith, eds. 2009. Connecting inquiry and professional
learning in education: International perspectives and practical solutions. London:
Routledge.
Cochran-Smith, M., and S.L. Lytle. 1999. Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher
learning in communities. In Review of research in education, Vol. 24, ed. A. Iran-Nejad
and P.D. Pearson, 249–306. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Day, C. 1999. Developing teachers: The challenges of lifelong learning. London: Falmer.
Day, C., G. Stobart, P. Sammons, G. Kington, and Q. Gu. 2007. Teachers matter: Connect-
ing lives, work and effectiveness. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Department for Education. 2010. The importance of teaching: Schools white paper. http://
www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/CM-7980.pdf.
Doyle, W., and G.A. Ponder. 1977. The practicality ethic in teacher decision making. Inter-
change 8, no. 3: 1–12.
Earley, P. 2010. State of the nation: A discussion of some of the project’s key findings.
Paper presented at the BERA Annual Conference, September, in Warwick.
Elliott, J. 1991. Action research for educational change. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Freire, P., and D. Macedo. 1995. A dialogue: Pedagogy, culture, language and race. Harvard
Educational Review 65, no. 3: 377–402.
Gleeson, D., and C. Husbands, eds. 2001. The performing school: Managing, teaching and
learning in a performance culture. London: Routledge.
Goodnough, K. 2011. Examining the long-term impact of collaborative action research on
teacher identity and practice. The perceptions of K–12 teachers. Educational Action
Research 19, no. 1: 73–86.
Goodson, I.F. 2003. Professional knowledge, professional lives: Studies in education and
change. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Goodson, I.F., and S. Lindblad, eds. 2010. Teachers’ professional work and life under
restructuring in Europe. Rotterdam: Sense.
HM Government. 2009. New opportunities: Fair chances for the future. London: The Statio-
nery Office.
HM Government. 2010. The Coalition: Our programme for government. May. London:
Cabinet Office.
House of Commons, Children, Schools and Families Select Committee. 2010. Training of
teachers, Fourth Report of Session 2009–10. February. London: HMSO.
Hulme, R., and D. Cracknell. 2009. Learning across boundaries: Developing trans-professional
understanding through practitioner enquiry. In Connecting enquiry and professional
learning in education: International perspectives and practical solutions, ed. A. Campbell
and S. Groundwater-Smith, 53–67. London: Routledge.
Hulme, R., D. Cracknell, and A. Owens. 2009. Learning in third spaces: Developing trans-
professional understanding through practitioner enquiry. Educational Action Research 17,
no. 4: 537–50.
Journal Officiel de La République Française. 2009. No. 0173, July 29. http://www.legif-
rance.gouv.fr.
Kansanen, P. 2010. Horribile dictu: The success story of the Finnish school system. In
Denkkulturen. Selbstwerdung des Menschen. Erziehungskulturen [Cultures of thought,
self development and educational cultures], ed. A. Liimets, 95–110. Frankfurt am Main:
Peter Lang.
328 B. Hulse and R. Hulme

La Direction Générale des Ressources Humaines [Department of Human Resources]. 2010.

Etude Relative au dispositif d’accueil d’accompagnement et de formation des enseignants
stagiaires des premier et seconde degrés [Report on arrangements for the induction and
training of primary and secondary trainee teachers]. DGRHB1–2, November. http://www.
cafépédagogique.net/lexpresso/Documents/men-stagiaires.pdf.
Laurillard, D. 1993. Re-thinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of
educational technology. London: Routledge.
Le Cafe Peadgogique. 2011. Formation des enseignants: Aujourd’hui un champ de ruines et
demain? http://www.cafepedagogique.net/lexpresso/Pages/2011/02/0702_Auduc_Formation.
aspx (accessed May 4, 2011).
Livingston, K., and L. Shiach. 2009. Academic induction for new teacher educators: Forging
authentic research identities through practitioner inquiry. In Connecting inquiry and pro-
fessional learning in education: International perspectives and practical solutions, ed.
A. Campbell and S. Groundwater-Smith, 96–108. London: Routledge.
Lunenberg, M., F. Korthagen, and A. Swennen. 2007. The teacher educator as role model.
Teaching and Teacher Education 23, no. 5: 586–601.
MacLure, M. 1996. Telling transitions: Boundary work in narratives of becoming an action
researcher. British Educational Research Journal 22, no. 3: 273–86.
McLaughlin, C. 2007. School–university partnerships for educational research. Seminar,
March 20, in Liverpool Hope University.
McLaughlin, C., K. Black-Hawkins, S. Brindley, D. McIntyre, and K. Tabor. 2006.
Researching schools: Stories from a schools–university partnership for educational
research. London: Routledge.
McNally, J. 2006. A loose thread of research in a seamless garment of professional
development. Paper presented to the TLRP Seminar programme: Changing Teacher
Roles, Identities and Professionalism, April 26, in King’s College, London.
McNamara, O., ed. 2002. Becoming an evidence based practitioner. London: Falmer.
McNamara, O., J. Murray, M. Jones, and G. Stanley. 2008. Teacher Education Research
Network: ESRC TLRP Seminar Series. Liverpool John Moores University, November 5,
2008; University of Manchester, January 21, 2009; Manchester Metropolitan University,
February 11, 2009; Edgehill University, February 25, 2009; University of Cumbria,
March 18, 2009; Liverpool Hope University, April 29, 2009; University of Chester, May
20, 2009; Liverpool John Moores University, July 8, 2009.
Murray, J., and T. Male. 2005. Becoming a teacher educator: Evidence from the field.
Teaching and Teacher Education 21, no. 2: 107–15.
Murray, J., A. Campbell, I. Hextall, M. Hulme, M. Jones, P. Mahony, and K. Wall. 2009.
Research and teacher education in the UK: Building capacity. Teaching & Teacher
Education 25, no. 7: 944–50.
Opfer, V., and D. Pedder. 2010. Access to continuous professional development by teachers
in England. The Curriculum Journal 21, no. 4: 453–71.
Opfer, V.D., D. Pedder, and Z. Lavicza. 2008. Schools and continuing professional develop-
ment in England – State of the Nation research study (T34718): Survey report. London:
Training and Development Agency for Schools.
Ponte, P. 2009. Post graduate programmes as platforms: Coming together and doing
research for a common moral purpose. In Connecting enquiry and professional
learning in education: International perspectives and practical solutions, ed. A.
Campbell and S. Groundwater-Smith, 68–82. London: Routledge.
Popper, K.R. 1972. Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon.
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. 2008. Framework for higher education
qualifications in England. London: Stationery Office.
Raffo, C., and D. Hall. 2006. Transitions to becoming a teacher on an initial teacher education
and training programme. British Journal of Sociology of Education 27, no. 1: 53–66.
Ross, A. 2001. Heads will roll. Guardian, January 23, Education, 8–9.
Saunders, L. 2004. Evidence-led professional creativity: A perspective from the General
Teaching Council for England. Educational Action Research 12, no. 1: 163–79.
Sewell, K. 2007. PGCE M level. ESCalate help directory for teacher educators. Higher Edu-
cation Academy Education Subject Centre, ESCalate, University of Bristol. http://www.
escalate.ac.uk.
 Educational Action Research 329

Soulsby, D., and D. Swain. 2003. Report on the award bearing INSET scheme. London:
DfES.
Training and Development Agency for Schools. 2007. The professional standards for
qualified teacher status. London: Stationery Office.
Zeichner, K. 2003. Teacher research and professional development. Educational Action
Research 11, no. 2: 301–26.