Presentation by Dr Elspeth McCartney for the Higher Education Academy (HEA) symposium on teacher education at BERA Annual Conference in London, September 2014. The project, one of 4 funded by the HEA, involved supporting student teacher engagement with published research. The full project report describing the work can be found at http://bit.ly/1mqhzHS

2. HEA Project: Student teacher
engagement with research
Elspeth McCartney, Helen Marwick
University of Strathclyde
BERA Conference
3rd September 2014, IoE London

3. • Despite contested issues of what
constitutes ‘evidence’; on the feasibility of
‘filling the evidence gap’, and of the
complexities of implementation in
classrooms, there is some agreement on
the need for teachers to become
‘discerning consumers’ of research (BERA
2014 p5)
3
The (re)turn to research evidence

4. • ‘Critical policy’ evidence, synthesising (often)
large-scale data and existing research studies into
policy statements
• ‘What works’ research, evaluating and
synthesising studies on the effects of specific
classroom approaches
• Much research is as yet poorly articulated with
teachers’ needs/poorly ‘translated’ for use
4
Two types of ‘evidence’

5. • This project, commissioned as a strategic
social science project within HEA’s
strategic research priority of ‘Supporting
research-informed teacher education’
investigated student teachers’ views on
and use of research evidence
5
HEA Project 4

6. • Little is known about student teachers’ views
as they progress towards practice
• Teachers’ views of research evidence and its
uses are not uniformly welcoming (Helmsley
Brown & Sharp 2003)
• Students are transitioning into the new
research context, and may have similarly
mixed views
6
Because …..

7. 1 identify examples of critical policy research
evidence on the influences of developmental,
social, cultural and/or linguistic factors on child
attainment and wellbeing, and of their inter-relationships
2 identify examples of what works research
evaluating classroom practices, also for children
with developmental, social, cultural and/or
linguistic factors that may impact adversely on
their attainment and wellbeing
7
Specific project aims were to:

8. 3 prepare and pilot workshop materials to
engage participant students in appraising
selected reports of relevant research, using
questionnaire and group discussion
methods to discuss the barriers and
facilitators they perceive in using research
4 identify key themes emerging from pilot
workshops. This is still underway
8
Specific project aims were to:

9. • A mixed-methods approach was used,
employing survey methods (questionnaire
and group interview) with responses to
closed questions summated, alongside
thematic analysis of open comments and
group interview responses
9
Methodology

10. Aims 1 and 2: sourcing evidence
• Education research evidence was sourced
from University of Strathclyde Humanities
and Social Science Faculty staff, as a
scholarly community
• Also from targeted literature searches
10

11. • Faculty staff sent policy research
examples, but no what works research
examples
• Targeted searches found both kinds of
evidence
• One example of each was used in a
workshop
11
Evidence retrieved

12. • Key sources of policy research were:
• The Joseph Rowntree Foundation
http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications
• The National Foundation for Educational Research
http://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/
• The Teachers College Record http://www.tcrecord.org/
12
Sources for policy evidence

13. • Key sources of What Works research were:
• The Campbell Collaboration Library of Systematic
Reviews http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/lib/
• The Cochrane Collaboration reviews
http://www.cochrane.org/cochrane-reviews
• The Education Endowment Foundation
http://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/toolkit/
• The ‘What Works’ Clearinghouse
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/findwhatworks.aspx
•
13
Sources for What Works evidence

14. • Workshops were designed so that HEIs
could select relevant examples for their
students, and update as required
• Studies relevant to Strathclyde students
were chosen for the pilot
14
Selecting evidence to discuss

15. • Pilot students could be studying for a:
• Post Graduate Diploma in Education
(PGDE), primary or secondary,
• BEd degree, primary; or
• BA Childhood Practice (BACP), a part-time
degree for individuals already working with
pre-school children
15
Selecting evidence to discuss

16. Policy example: all pilot courses
• Executive summary of Sosu & Ellis (2014)
Closing the Attainment Gap in Scottish
Education. York: Joseph Rowntree
Foundation.
http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/education
-attainment-scotland-summary.pdf
• New, relevant to Scotland
16

17. What works examples: varied
by course
• All were US What Works Clearinghouse (WWC)
Quick Reviews which summarise studies on a
topic:
• PGDE: Closing the Social-Class Achievement
Gap: A difference-education intervention improves
first-generation students’ academic performance
and all students’ college transitions.
• BEd: Reciprocal Teaching: Students with learning
difficulties.
• BACP: Head Start Impact Study: Final report
• All http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/quick_reviews
17

18. • Each workshop comprised five activities:
1. an individual Pre-workshop Questionnaire, asking
about current uses of research evidence, its sources
and utility, barriers and facilitators to its use, and views
about research;
2. an activity on Views of Research, asking whether
statements about educational research were or were
not close to the participant’s personal views, with group
discussion;
3. group discussion focussed on questions about
Research Summary 1, the selected policy research
summary;
18
Aim 3: workshop activities

19. 4. group discussion focussed on questions about
Research Summary 2, the WWC Quick Review, and
5. an individual Post-workshop Questionnaire, asking
about how research could be made more useful, about
students’ experiences of participating in the workshops,
and about any personal changes resulting from
workshop participation.
• A Follow-up Questionnaire was sent a month later asking
about any further changes in views following the
workshop.
19
Workshop activities

20. Piloting workshop materials
• Workshop materials were piloted with a
post-graduate student with experience as
an ITE teaching associate, as a primary
teacher and as a teacher of children with
learning difficulties, to clarify procedures
and timing
• Then with BA Childhood Practice students
20

21. • Recordings of discussion were
transcribed, and thematically analysed
• Nine key themes emerged
• However, there are few students and
further piloting could uncover further
themes
21
Aim 4: emerging themes

22. Outcomes
• The workshop materials proved feasible,
and uncovered relevant information
• Final versions of the materials are
available on the HEA website
22

23. • On post-workshop questionnaires, participants answered
‘yes’ to all questions about whether they had changed
their views following workshops. For example:
• “Developing my understanding of
analysis/methodologies.”
• It has encouraged me to think more about, are there any
weaknesses to research?”
• “Finding out that research and implementation of
practices are not always evaluated and clearly written.”
• On the follow-up questionnaire, a student noted that she
had accessed the web sites suggested, and found them
very useful.
23
Impact of workshops

24. • A qualitative analysis was undertaken, with
too few participants in the pilot workshops
to allow quantitative measures
• Within the small numbers, however, one
unexpected finding emerged: a difference
in views of critical policy research and of
What Works’ research
24
One unexpected finding

25. • The policy research extract was considered accessible,
with its messages understood
• The WWC Quick Reviews were not considered
accessible
• Although written for a professional audience, they
require understandings of how study quality is evaluated,
and how systematic reviews are constructed, which
challenged the students
• ‘When I looked at it today, and I thought “That’s me,
cause I’m not academic”. But it’s not very clear.’
25
A blank on what works research?

26. • Students responded to WWC Quick
Reviews by attempting to relate findings to
personal experience (Theme 2), and by
challenging the research methodologies
(Theme 5). They expressed discomfort in
discussing the Quick Reviews when they
had not understood them (Theme 7),
which they said would impact upon
workshop participation in less supportive
contexts.
26
Types of research

27. • However, the different responses to policy
and What Works research has resonances
with some teachers’ views, summarised by
Connolly, (2009)
27
This may not be a common reaction

30. • The distinction may also be due to the
underpinning evaluative principles of what
works research being unfamiliar to
students
• This could make it difficult for education
students to engage with current what
works research initiatives, and to
understand the outcome metrics used by
researchers such as the Education
Endowment Foundation (EEF)
30
Issues for ITE

31. • The relatively new applications of what
works approaches to classroom practice
may need to be addressed in ITE courses
• This has implications for HE, and its
distinctive contributions to ITE
• There are also implications for co-professional
education and co-professional
working
31
Issues for ITE

32. • Similar workshop approaches, or indeed
replicating the workshops with course-relevant
research examples, may be a
good means of encouraging student
engagement with research, and allowing
students space to discuss their views
32
Conclusions

33. • The workshops proved a viable means of
assessing and discussing students’ views
• There was a suggestion from follow –up
responses that discussing research
examples could influence student views
• The possibility was raised of different
understandings of policy research and
what works research, which has
implications for ITE educators.
33
Conclusions

34. Thank you
• Thank you for listening.
34

35. Key readings
• BERA (2014). The Role of Research in Teacher Education:
Reviewing the Evidence. London: BERA
• Connolly, P. (2009) Paradigm Wars, Evidence and Mixed Methods
in Educational Researchhttp://www.paulconnolly.net/publications/
pdf_filesTERN_Presentation_2009.pdf
• Florian, L. & Pantić, N. (2013), Eds. Learning to teach. Part 2:
Exploring the Distinctive Contribution of Higher Education to Teacher
Education. York: HEA
• Helmsley-Brown, J. & Sharp, C. (2003). The use of research to
improve professional practice: a systematic review of the literature.
Oxford Review of Education, 29 (4) 449 – 470.
• Schleicher, A. (2012), Ed. Preparing Teachers and Developing
School Leaders for the 21st Century: OECD Publishing.
35