Chinese higher education-based physical education teacher educators’ professional learning needs for involvement in research activities

ABSTRACT

Research activity is one of the key professional learning needs noted by teacher educators working in higher education. The purpose of this study is to explore what research activities Chinese higher education-based physical education teacher educators (PETEds) prioritised and, in turn, expressed their aligned research-related professional learning needs. A sample of 15 Chinese higher education-based PETEds was interviewed. The results conveyed that Chinese PETEds had a strong desire to avail of research-related professional learning activities, with the majority prioritising peer-review publication. The motives for PETEds to be involved in research tend to be extrinsic to the individual and include pressures aligned to the evaluation of their academic position and institute requirements. PETEds who entered teacher education with a PhD were expected and supported to do research, while PETEds without a PhD requested opportunities to undertake a PhD abroad. While it was easier for PETEds to undertake collaborative research with a research group within their faculty/department, there was a lack of collaborative research external to the faculty/department as well as a lack of international collaboration.

KEYWORDS:

• Teacher educators
• physical education
• professional learning
• research activities
• teacher education

Introduction

Teacher educators are at the core of good teacher education (Vloet and Van Swet 2010), and key to the educational system as a whole (Smith 2003, 2017, Vanassche and Kelchtermans 2016). It is acknowledged that teacher educators’ work is complex and they require high-quality learning opportunities for continuing professional development (Kelchtermans et al. 2018). In a recent study, Ping et al. (2018) reported on a systematic review of teacher educators’ professional learning and found many current studies on teacher educators’ professional learning to undertake research. Teacher educators being research active continues to gain increasing support from higher education institutions in many countries (Lunenberg et al. 2014). For instance, teacher educators from the UK in Roberts and Weston (2014) study were supported to attend research activities (i.e. workshops on how to write a research plan or abstract and a seminar series to offer peer support). There have been various calls to better identify and address teacher educators’ ongoing professional learning needs (Berry 2016, Czerniawski, Guberman et al. 2017, Czerniawski, Gray et al. 2018, MacPhail et al. 2019). Interestingly, professional learning activities related to research were one of the top professional learning needs identified by teacher educators from many different countries (Czerniawski, Guberman et al. 2017, Czerniawski, Gray et al. 2018, MacPhail et al. 2019). Research has become a main path for teacher educators’ career development (Guberman and Mcdossi 2019). In many countries, the involvement in research activities was perceived as an important tool in teacher educators’ professional development (Van Der Klink et al. 2017), as well as a way to address their professional development needs (Maaranen et al. 2020). Indeed, teacher educators’ professional learning is under-researched (Czerniawski, Guberman et al. 2017), and few professional learning activities are available specifically for teacher educators (Gallagher et al. 2011, MacPhail et al. 2019, MacPhail and O’Sullivan 2019).

Lawson (1991) reported benefits of research activities for PETEds and called for an agenda to establish a better understanding of teacher educators in the subject area of physical education. Chinese PETEds’ professional learning needs related to research activities have been under-exposed in both English and Chinese literature. In this study, PETEds are those professionals working in universities who are responsible for teaching physical education pre-service teachers (PSTs) and providing support to in-service physical education teachers’ continuing education. The purpose of this study is to provide an understanding of (i) What research activities do Chinese higher education-based PETEds prioritise? (ii) What are the research-related professional learning needs of Chinese PETEds? and (iii) What are the barriers on Chinese PETEds to engaging in research activities?

Chinese teacher education context

Chinese teacher education is defined as training teachers in the stages of pre-service, induction and in-service (Chinese Ministry of Education 2002). Effective teachers are considered to be beneficial to Chinese society and promote the development of the entire country (Zhu and Zhao 2018). Teacher education is a significant part of the Chinese educational system, and improving the quality of teacher education is a vital task in implementing the strategy of rejuvenating the country through education (Chinese Ministry of Education 2002). However, there are still some outstanding problems for teacher education, including relatively outdated curriculum content and teaching methods, and what is considered to be a low quality of teacher education practices. Consequently, improving the quality of teacher education has become one of the core, and most urgent, tasks of China (Chinese Ministry of Education 2014). The same document supports the establishment of a community of teacher educators and improving the quality of teacher educators through specific training, and encouraging teacher educators to visit international universities.

In China, university Bachelor's teacher education programmes are four years in duration. There are 187 ‘normal’ universities and 363 ‘non-normal’ universities where teacher education programmes reside (Wang 2019). While ‘normal’ universities were traditionally primarily responsible for educating PSTs, since 1999 ‘non-normal’ universities have been encouraged to offer teacher education programmes (Chinese State Council 1999). To support teacher education, six normal universities (under the direct administration of the Chinese Ministry of Education) provide free education, free accommodation and living allowance to PSTs (Chinese State Council 2007). Some ‘non-normal’ universities continue to be more focused on research than preparing schoolteachers (Tang 2012). These initiatives have created incentives, as well as pressures, on Chinese higher education institutes to upgrade in terms of research rankings as an overriding, if not main, objective. This has caused competition among institutes at all levels and all types (normal and non-normal) to establish research centres (Yan and He 2015). In 2004, with a vision to conduct research on teacher education, provide policy advice, support continuous education for in-service teachers and promote internal communication, the Beijing Normal University established a national teacher education research centre. The centre included twenty-one researchers and began recruiting Master’s level teacher education students in 2007 and PhD candidates in teacher education in 2010 (see: http://cter.bnu.edu.cn/?about/tp/244.html). It has been suggested that more Chinese universities should provide specific programmes for PhD candidates in teacher education (Zhu and Zhao 2018). Given the increase in number of universities offering teacher education programmes, together with the expansion of enrolment, the successful employment of graduate teachers has become a major challenge (Wang 2019).

The amount of collaborative research in the field of Chinese physical education teacher education (PETE) is small and more collaboration with national colleagues, as well as building international networks and enhancing communication, are suggested (Li et al. 2015, Huang 2019). In a recent review of literature mapping Chinese PETE research from 2002 to 2018 (Huang 2019), it was reported that just over 50% of the papers were sole authored, almost 30% co-authored with one other person and 15% written by three authors. Chinese PETEds’ main dissemination of research is through Chinese.

Teacher educators’ professional learning

The concepts of ‘professional learning’ and ‘professional development’ are often conflated in meaning, even though many writers define them differently (Czerniawski 2018). The distinction between the two terms is not always explicit across the literature and, in many instances, both terms are used interchangeably. In other instances, either phrase is used deliberately (MacPhail et al. 2019). Professional learning tends to refer to informal learning opportunities that arise on a daily basis for the individual, with a focus on the individual’s needs and experiences (Berry et al. 2007). Professional development tends to refer to more formal group opportunities for teachers to attend organised, structured upskilling, with a focus on the nature of the upskilling content. Such formal group opportunities have been criticised for minimal or no follow-up support (MacPhail et al. 2014). In this paper, while our preference when talking about the study is to use professional learning, we use the preferred term of the specific authors we refer to in providing a context to the study.

According to a systematic review conducted by Ping et al. (2018), four main categories of teacher educators’ professional learning activities were identified: (i) learning through academic engagement, (ii) learning through collaborative activities with colleagues, student teachers, teachers at school or a group of teacher educators, (iii) attending research-related and educational professional development programmes, and (iv) learning through reflective activity. Following this study, a survey study by Ping et al. (2020) explored how Chinese and Dutch teacher educators perceive their professional learning in practice and reported that the teacher educators had a strong desire to learn.

Teacher educators’ motives for involvement in research activities

External and internal motivations are reasons for teacher educators to engage in research (Guberman and Mcdossi 2019). Providing insight into reasons for teacher educators’ engagement in professional learning could better address their professional development needs (Ping et al. 2018), noting that little is known about PETEds’ motives to do research (Lawson 1990). Our understanding about what motivated PETEds engagement in research is largely due to the work of Mitchell (1992a, 1992b, 1997). No research explicitly focused on the research practices of PETEds in general (McEvoy et al. 2015) until the work of McEvoy et al. (2018).

Extrinsic motives

External motivations for teacher educators’ professional learning includes changes in teacher education policy and programmes. Such changes encourage institutes of higher education to assess research productivity (e.g., the number and quality of research publications) against other institutes which, in turn, urges teacher educators to deepen their knowledge, skills and abilities in conducting research (Ping et al. 2018). Higher education institutes expect teacher educators to regularly publish in peer-reviewed journals (Roberts and Weston 2014), in a bid to establish themselves in specific research fields and make their research known to others (Åkerlind 2008). It is not uncommon that such practices are a key focus of higher education strategic plans (MacPhail and O’Sullivan 2019). A similar context exists in China, where publication is a key evaluation criteria for Chinese teacher educators’ academic promotion (Zhu 2010). Chinese teacher educators have conveyed their interest to undertake a PhD to achieve the title of ‘Professor’ which, in turn, serves as an indicator of esteem and track record when applying for research funding (Yang 2011). There is also a strong belief in the Chinese context that professional titles (such as ‘Professor’) are associated with heightened recognition from colleagues and institutes (Wang 2017). Within the expectation for promotion and career development, for most teacher educators in higher institutes, not only is a strong research profile necessary for promotion and career development (MacPhail and O’Sullivan 2019), such a profile is required to be competitive when compared with other university academics (Solbrekke and Sugrue 2014). Teacher educators are expected to seek and secure research funding and increase publication output, at times feeling frustrated and under pressure (Casey and Fletcher 2017, MacPhail and O’Sullivan 2019).

Intrinsic motives

Intrinsic motivation, such as the desire and responsibility to learn new professional knowledge and skills, has been reported as a reason for teacher educators’ undertaking professional learning activities (Ping et al. 2018). However, some teacher educators maintain that not all teacher educators should be forced to be involved in research, but rather that involvement in research be based on teacher educators’ interests and the implications for practice and ability (Chetty and Lubben 2010). In this instance, the purpose of publication becomes more intrinsic and is viewed primarily as a way of improving the academics’ understanding and research (Åkerlind 2008). In exploring the research lives of an international group of mid- and late-career PETEds, McEvoy et al. (2018) reported that motives for PETEds’ engagement in research tended to have a predominantly intrinsic focus, such as enjoyment and passion. However, there is an awareness that focusing solely on intrinsic motivations to undertake research activities (at the expense of being strategic in identifying funded research activities) may limit the career path of teacher educators (Casey and Fletcher 2017).

Teacher educators’ research and teaching

In exploring Chinese teacher educators’ teaching capability, it has been suggested that researching the teacher education process could better advantage teacher educators to teach about teaching (Liu 2016). Conceptualising the demands and expectations of teacher educators’ work, Loughran (2006) viewed teaching and researching teaching about teaching as part of a holistic understanding of scholarship in teacher education practices rather than as independent, separate and distinct tasks. Focusing on a teacher educator’s own practice, self-study of teacher education practice has gained momentum as a methodology and venue to support teacher educators’ professional development and effective learning (Vanassche and Kelchtermans 2015, Ping et al. 2018). With a focus on learning to be a more effective teacher educator, Bullock (2009) conducted a self-study on his developing pedagogy of teacher education. He created personal understandings of knowledge of teaching and productive learning as a result of an inquiry into the nature of his first three years’ practice. While teacher educators view research activities as a support for, and part of development of, their teaching practice (Cochran-Smith 2005, Chetty and Lubben 2010), teacher educators can become stressed when asked to consider combining their teacher education practices and research activities (Gleeson et al. 2013). In respect to teacher educators’ professional development of research and pedagogy, Griffiths et al. (2010) argued that these two aspects deserve equal attention and priority. While higher institutes expect teacher educators to be research active, they do not necessarily provide sufficient support and time for such activity. This increases the level of teacher educators’ frustration in attempting to balance teaching and research activities (Griffiths et al. 2014, Czerniawski, Guberman et al. 2017, MacPhail et al. 2019, MacPhail and O’Sullivan 2019). Moreover, as a result of pressure to research, it has become difficult for many teacher educators to focus solely on teaching (MacPhail and O’Sullivan 2019), with a need to provide assistance to teacher educators to balance research and teaching expectations (Vanassche and Kelchtermans 2016). In suggesting that there remains a challenge to combine theory and practice in teacher education, MacPhail et al. (2019) claim teacher educators need to form links between previous research, theory, experience and PSTs’ future teaching. That is, support both research-informed teacher education practices and teacher-informed research (MacPhail and O’Sullivan 2019).

Methodology

Participant selection

A sample of 15 participants was selected to be interviewed. Participants were sourced from 60 Chinese PETEds who, in completing a survey in a previous study researching professional learning needs of Chinese higher education-based PETEds (Gong et al. 2021), agreed to be contacted for follow-up interviews. Convenience sampling identified participants who were willing to participate and were more geographically accessible to the researcher (Teddlie and Yu 2007). Purposive sampling was used to select certain cases based on a specific purpose rather than random selection (Tashakkori and Teddlie 2003, p. 713). Purposive sampling was aided by the previous survey data (Gong et al. 2021) that listed the background of participants, their geographical location and different teaching experiences. The two inclusion criteria for determining the complement of participants were (i) working in universities across different provinces in China, and (ii) a variety of work experience in teaching physical education PSTs in Chinese universities.

Participants

To protect the anonymity of the participants, each were given a number from one to 15. Among the 15 participants (12 male and three female), six had a PhD degree, and nine held a Master’s degree. Of the nine who held a Master’s degree, this was through completion of a taught Master’s programme rather than a Master’s by research. The universities they worked in were located across eight provinces in China. All participants taught physical education PSTs. The range of years working as a PETEd in university ranged from one to 17. Four participants had previous teaching experience in schools, and 11 did not. Each participant’s age, level of degree, level of professional learning needs for involvement in research activities, teaching experience in school and years of work experience in universities as PETEds are noted in Table 1.

Table 1. Demographics for the sample of PETEds across eight provinces.

Participants	Gender	Degree	Teaching experience in schools	Working years in higher education	Level of needs for research activities
1	Male	PhD	No	2	High
2	Male	Master	4 months	17	High
3	Male	Master	No	13	Low
4	Male	Master	No	2	High
5	Male	PhD	1 year	12	High
6	Female	Master	No	4	High
7	Male	PhD	No	2	Medium
8	Male	PhD	10 years	12	High
9	Male	PhD	1 year	8	High
10	Female	Master	No	1	High
11	Male	Master	No	3	Low
12	Male	Master	No	8	Low
13	Male	Master	No	15	Low
14	Male	PhD	No	4	High
15	Female	Master	No	15	High

Interviews

Ethical approval was granted from the research ethics committee of the authors’ institute. The interview protocol was initially constructed in English and then translated to Chinese for ease of data collection. The interview protocol included four sections: (i) participants’ path into teacher education, (ii) opportunities for professional learning, (iii) most prioritised professional learning needs for involvement in research activities, and (iv) barriers of engagement in research activities. The 15 individual semi-structured interviews were conducted in China in Chinese. Nine of the interviews were carried out face to face at a location convenient to the participant (i.e., in their university office). Interviews for the remaining six participants took place via a phone call. The interviews lasted between 30 and 70 minutes and were recorded with each participant’s permission.

Data analysis

The interviews were transcribed in Chinese and translated into English. A grounded theory method (Strauss and Corbin 1998) was employed to analyse the data. In the process of analysis, three phases of coding were utilised to interpret the interviews. An example of the process of analysis is provided in Table 2. Phase one, open coding, involved revisiting the interview transcripts to build concepts from the textual data source and develop them into categories. Phase two, axial coding, consisted of reconstructing data by making connections between a category and its subcategories (Strauss 1990, p. 97). During axial coding, the codes were combined into broader themes including ‘Motives’, ‘Research topics’, ‘Mentorship’ and ‘Collaboration’. Phase three was selective coding where the core categories resulted in five coded themes that related to PETEds’ significant professional learning needs for involvement in research activities. These were ‘Motives’, ‘Deliberate positioning within research fields’, ‘Infrastructure that supports research or teaching’, ‘Mentorship’ and ‘Collaborative research’.

Table 2. Data analysis example.

Phase one	Phase two	Phase three
· Higher degree · Institute requirement · Cooperation with colleagues · International cooperation · Publications · Salary · Time · Hot topics · Large projects · Funding · Professional title · English language · Teaching · Supervisor · Postgraduate students · University context	Motives · Professional title · Publications ·Institute requirement · Salary · Recognition · Interests · PhD · University context Research topics · Teacher education · Hot topics · Large projects · Funding · Research and teaching Mentorship · Supervisor · Postgraduate students Collaboration · With colleagues within faculty · With colleagues outside of faculty · With international researchers · Language	Motives · Academic promotion · Institute expectation · Intrinsic motives Deliberate positioning within research fields · Hot topics · Large project · Research on teacher education Infrastructure that supports research or teaching · Research and teaching practice · Research-intensive university · Teaching-intensive university Mentorship · Supervisor · Postgraduate students Collaborative research   · Strengths of collaborative research · Lack of collaboration · Barriers to collaboration

Trustworthiness of the data

Procedures for trustworthiness included a member checking process to confirm credibility of the information (Creswell and Miller 2000). Participants received a copy of his/her transcript and were encouraged to clarify and verify the accuracy of their interview transcript. They were prompted to delete words and phrases from narratives if they did not want the content to be considered. In a further attempt to increase the trustworthiness, all researchers were involved in the discussion of the coding and subsequent codes.

Results and discussion

There was a genuine interest from PETEds from a variety of professional backgrounds to be involved in research. Five main areas arose and include (i) motives for doing research, (ii) deliberate positioning within research fields, (iii) infrastructure that supports research or teaching, (iv) the expectations of, and from, mentorship, and (v) the strengths and weaknesses of collaborative research. We visit results related to each in turn.

The motives for doing research

Academic promotion

Chinese PETEds indicated a strong desire to avail of research-related learning activities. Chinese PETEds’ motivations for research were predominantly extrinsic due to the pressures of professional title evaluation and institute requirements to be research active. Achieving the position of ‘Professor’ was identified by the majority of PETEds as a key extrinsic motivation for involvement in research activities. PETEds experienced various research activities, including writing for publication, writing books, presenting at conferences and undertaking data analysis. Publishing papers was recognised by the majority of PETEds as the priority research activity, ‘Of course publication is most valued’ (14), and ‘Basically publishing [a] paper is mainly for professional-title evaluation. This is a popular thought’ (3). Research ability was believed to be the primary consideration in achieving promotion and, in turn, an elevated professional title, motivating PETEds to participate in research activities. PETEds’ strong desire to achieve an elevated professional title was significantly related to the desire to increase their salary which is low in comparison to other academic colleagues;

A teacher [educator] is a career with low salary. Physical education teachers are poorer (financially). We are always busy, and we work hard. However, the salary is so low, the lowest salary compared to other teachers [educators] in this university … I think it’s so unfair (15).

Unlike the teacher educators in England, Ireland and Scotland who did not consider a rise in salary as an influential factor in professional learning engagement (Czerniawski, Gray et al. 2018), attending research activities which ensured being able to earn a higher salary was noted as an incentive for Chinese PETEds, especially for those who had family commitments and responsibilities;

I think nobody really likes to do research very much … Why do I do research? Of course, I need to survive. The more research, the higher professional title and the higher salary. As a human, firstly I need to survive, right? (14).

Institute expectation

Livingston et al. (2009) noted that through the international interest in ranking higher education institutes, there has been a growing demand for teacher educators to become research active in many countries, with an increasing number of publications highly stressing teacher educators’ task of engaging in research activities (Tack and Vanderlinde 2014). Some Chinese PETEds believed they had an obligation to do research, that it was influenced by the working circumstance in higher education, and ‘Doing research has become a task for every lecturer in higher education. This is the institutional requirement’ (9). It was apparent that the higher the degree qualification (e.g., PhD) of PETEds, the higher expectation and support there was for PETEds to participate in research. It was particularly evident for beginning Chinese PETEds who entered teacher education with a PhD that it was unacceptable not to be involved in research. Subsequently, while they were provided with more research opportunities and support, this brought with it the pressure to publish papers, ‘A lot of rewards are provided by the university, especially if you have a PhD, you are encouraged to publish papers’ (5). Due to collaboration between Chinese and South Korean universities, three PETEds were in the process of applying to undertake a PhD in South Korea. Interestingly, a PETEd who admitted to not being interested in research, was aware of the need to undertake a PhD as a requirement of the university, ‘I don’t like any types of research activity. I need to get a higher degree and I am learning Korean language which is required to apply for the PhD in Korea’ (11). Chinese universities conveyed their support in this arena by providing time and financial support for PETEds without a PhD to travel abroad;

There will be more learning resources abroad and my second language will be improved. During these two years, faculty gave me great support, I have been provided a salary during my study. In this way, the faculty encouraged teachers to go outside [of China] to undertake a PhD. This is a great change during these years (14).

Intrinsic motives

Intrinsic motives include recognition of the importance of research, an interest in the research project as well as the wish for professional development (Guberman and Mcdossi 2019). While PETEds admitted to undertaking research as a means to achieving career promotion, a few shared alternative motives to undertake research for the greater good, ‘Why couldn’t we do some research which can promote the society? It’s finally useless if you are doing research for the purpose of a professional title’ (4). In some instances, PETEds’ motives to do research shifted from extrinsic to intrinsic, ‘At the beginning, I do research because it is a metric of professional title evaluation and I have to do research. Later, I felt it is interesting. I gradually have interests in research’ (2). Other PETEds implied that professional recognition drove their interest in doing research,

It became more and more difficult to publish papers in the field of physical education. If the paper I wrote could be published, to some extent I was recognised and had a sense of accomplishment. This is a great motivation (1).

Deliberate positioning within research fields

Hot topics

Casey and Fletcher (2017) described the frustration between external and intrinsic motivations when PETEds’ research interests do not align with institute requirements and funding expectations. In terms of PETEds’ research topics, McEvoy et al. (2018) demonstrated that an international group of mid- and late-career PETEds’ interests in specific research topics generally tended to arise through a desire to improve personal learning and practice and that they enjoyed the research process. However, we found there was an admittance from many Chinese PETEds that, in order to secure academic promotion, they would choose research fields that, ‘were mainly based on hot [current] topics’ (1). As a result, they were likely to gain more exposure of their research, make it easier to publish papers in Chinese journals, and heighten the probability of receiving funding.

Large projects

There was a preference for Chinese PETEds to attach themselves to large provincial or national projects that carried significant weighting in terms of research achievement when being considered for an elevated professional title. Consequently, research with small groups of participants or within small, localised regions was less valued by institutes. This made it more difficult to secure funding and gain recognition, ‘I wanted to apply to city level projects researching some issues of the local place, but my university would not reward and recognise it. Also, my faculty supported us to apply for bigger projects’ (5). Chinese PETEds were eager to record significant research achievements in a short period of time. This resulted in positioning themselves so they were aligned to research interests and activities that tended to gain traction easier or faster. For instance, one PETEd admitted to placing minimal value on attending international conferences noting that, while such attendance could expand his horizons, it would cost a significant amount of money with no immediate valued research outcome.

Teacher education

Differing from Finnish teacher educators whose research focus was on their own field of specialisation (Maaranen et al. 2020), Chinese PETEds generally chose to operate in a broad research field, ‘I think I may not refuse to participate in a study which can have research achievements’ (6). Lunenberg et al. (2014) argued that not all studies suggest that teacher educators should be generally research active, but rather that they are research active within teacher education. A study by Smith (2005) conveyed that involvement in research is not necessarily a feature of an effective teacher educator, while there may be an expectation that teacher educators engage more with research on teacher education to inform their work (MacPhail and O’Sullivan 2019). This concern was shared by a Chinese PETEd, ‘The focus of my research is not so related to my teaching … Though some of my research could be applied in teaching if your research is so related to teacher education, you will transfer more in teaching practice’ (1). However, research in teacher education was not a priority, or an interest, for the majority of Chinese PETEds, supporting the findings of Yin et al. (2016). While there was no evidence in talking with Chinese PETEds of any established research group focused on physical education teacher educator/teacher education, there was an appreciation that teacher education research was significant for teacher educators;

I think doing research on teacher education is a foundation as a teacher educator. There are many teachers who teach physical education students, but they don’t do research on teacher education. I think this is a big deficiency (14).

Infrastructures that support research or teaching

Research and teaching practice

Tack and Vanderlinde (2014) noted that for teacher educators to gain a deep understanding of teaching practice they have to engage in research activities. There was an appreciation from Chinese PETEds that research ability, to some extent, can be considered as an important aspect of evaluating a PETEd’s teaching ability, ‘If your research ability is low, I think you will not be a qualified and outstanding educator. Research itself has been merged into teaching practice’ (4). Some Chinese PETEds prioritised research activities that, through upskilling their teaching practices and research ability, would allow them to more effectively supervise their postgraduate students’ research. The majority of Chinese PETEds mentioned the link between research and teaching, believing that combining research and teaching is mutually beneficial. Chinese PETEds not only prioritised research activities that could promote their career professional development but also guide their teaching practice, ‘I sometimes read other people’s publications, but I won’t read an article full of theory. I would like to read the articles related to teaching and training. Then I sometimes use the methods in my teaching’ (13). The majority of Chinese PETEds noted that they had shared their own research and other published research concerned with teaching practice to improve the education and research ability of PSTs, ‘I can use research outcomes in my teaching. I mentioned some research to update students’ new knowledge and improve my postgraduates’ experiment design ability … and to undertake a PhD’ (15).

Griffiths et al. (2014) reported that some teacher educators teaching in higher education experienced considerable difficulties in balancing research and teaching, recommending the necessity for institutes to recognise the specific needs of teacher educators in order to provide sufficient and relevant institutional support. It was evident that it was proving difficult for Chinese PETEds to strike a balance between teaching and participating in research activities, ‘I am under huge pressure of teaching, because I have so many classes. In addition, I need to coach aerobics. That’s why I didn’t have so much time to attend conferences, even though there are many opportunities’ (10).

Research-intensive and teaching-intensive universities

Chinese PETEds’ research activity professional learning needs were influenced by the level of research support and research expectations from their respective universities. Some PETEds who were in research-intensive universities demonstrated that they were provided more time, opportunities and financial support/rewards for research activities. While both research-intensive and teaching-intensive teacher education institutes are responsible for educating PSTs, research-intensive teacher education institutes received more research funding than teaching-intensive teacher education institutions (Chetty and Lubben 2010, European Commission 2013, Tack and Vanderlinde 2019), and this was mirrored in the Chinese context. Interestingly, the research activity professional learning needs were more related to institute context in terms of research-intensive universities and teaching-intensive universities rather than ‘normal’ universities or ‘non-normal’ universities. Research-intensive universities prioritised research and provided more grants to encourage lecturers to pursue research;

Firstly, my university provides rewards to us if papers are published. Secondly, the university invited many experts to give lectures which helped us to design our research. When the time comes to apply for projects, we are encouraged to actively participate in the application and sometimes some experts came to have a look. Those are the supports (9).

In teaching-intensive universities, Chinese PETEds focused on teaching and believed that research was less valued and supported than in research-intensive universities. In such instances, the lack of research infrastructure influenced PETEds’ professional learning needs for involvement in research activities, ‘I think I am not suitable to be a researcher, because the main work of lecturers in my university is teaching’ (7). PETEds in teaching-intensive universities felt less supported, and had less passion to engage, in research;

Our university does not emphasise research, which results in other colleagues not being so interested in doing research. After I did a study, there was not so much reward and value. So doing research became a task for most of us. We are not actively pursuing further research (6).

The expectations of, and from, mentorship

PETEds who are quality supervisors play a key role in graduate students’ professional learning in becoming researchers (Stylianou et al. 2017). There has, however, been limited exploration on how supervisors influence graduate students’ professional learning and development in research after graduation. Strong mentorship was evident when Chinese PETEds were involved in research. It was common for postgraduate students and PhD candidates to be aligned with their supervisors’ projects by becoming a member of the research team. This resulted in receiving high levels of support and positively influencing team members to move forward as a group. Such a supportive mentorship tended to continue when the postgraduate students completed their studies and became higher education-based PETEds. With respect to the need to engage in research activities, research supervisors strove to maintain a role-model function in promoting PETEds’ active participation in research, ‘I think my supervisor plays a significant role. His attitude [to do research] is rigorous and he leads and promotes me to do some research’ (2). A few Chinese PETEds felt isolated in their current working context and wished they were still in contact with their previous research group that included the supervisor and postgraduate students, ‘There is no research group here. I do research on my own. So I stayed in touch with my group in the university where I graduated. They helped me to deal with data analysis’ (11).

Chinese PETEds who had the responsibility to supervise postgraduate students conveyed a heightened need to upskill in research skills to allow them to effectively guide their postgraduate students’ research and, in turn, improve their own research profile;

I have done a lot of work to cultivate postgraduate students. Now I have seven postgraduates. So I should have higher research capabilities. I have the need to do research. Doing research is a big part of my work in university (15).

The strengths and weaknesses of collaborative research

Strengths of collaborative research

Working with graduate students, other research team members and national and international networks can result in addressing PETEds’ skill gaps, sharing the research workload and reducing time pressures (McEvoy et al. 2019). Without colleagues with whom to conduct collaborative research, PETEds can feel isolated (Tannehill 2016). Rather than developing research knowledge and skills in an isolated context (Tanner and Davies 2009), collaborative learning from colleagues as well as collaborative projects receive support as a means of developing teacher educators’ confidence in research and, in turn, their research capacity (Tanner and Davies 2009, Griffiths et al. 2014). Some Chinese PETEds acknowledged the extent to which collaborative research, and the associated communication, addressed professional learning needs related to applying for projects and writing books, ‘I like to apply [to be part of] a project. When doing a research project, I am doing it with a group of people, not like writing a paper by yourself’ (10), and ‘Working with more outstanding people to improve myself’ (15).

Lack of collaboration

Huang (2019) noted a lack of collaborative research in Chinese PETE. In the study reported here, Chinese PETEds’ research collaboration was more reliant on already established research groups. It was noticeable that there was a lack of collaborative research opportunities outside of internal research groups and faculty, reflected by two Chinese PETEds, ‘Currently between universities, we are doing our own research, few collaborations’ (5), and ‘I was thinking of collaborating with people from outside my university. But so far I haven’t collaborated with people outside my faculty yet’ (10).

Aligned with the focus of internationalisation across most international higher institutes, publishing papers in English in international journals had become a recent requirement and trend across Chinese universities, proving a challenge for Chinese PETEds. It has been noted before that PETEds whose first language was not English required extra effort and time to meet English-speaking publication standards (McEvoy et al. 2018). Three Chinese PETEds wished to improve their English in order to cooperate with international researchers, with one commenting;

I want to publish an English paper, but I think currently my English is not good enough. I have to cooperate with international researchers who are good at the English language. It would be perfect if she/he knows Chinese as well (8).

Barriers to collaboration

Some Chinese PETEds preferred to do research, and publish papers, by themselves, ‘I prefer to do some experiments about exercise promoting brain cognition which I can do by myself’ (5). The initial challenge to collaborative research was in seeking a suitable colleague to work with, ‘In reality, there are very few people who are really doing research. That’s why I rejected to work with others’ (1). MacPhail et al. (2014) described a successful example of how two PETE researchers, working in different institutes, overcame roadblocks (e.g., physical distance and time difference) and successfully pursued collaborative research. Different roadblocks arose in the study we report here. Professional standing was a barrier to Chinese PETEds actively seeking to collaborate on research. Chinese PETEds consistently shared that publications as a co-author had significantly less weighting than that of lead author or sole author. This was heightened by the usual practice of only the first author of a paper being given the opportunity to secure funding to attend conferences and deliver presentations. This resulted in Chinese PETEds carefully considering who would be the first author.

It was clear that the significant reason for Chinese PETEds not collaborating with colleagues (either inside or outside their university) was down to their assessment of the professional effect such involvement would have. Chinese PETEds were interested in research publications which they believed would be more valuable (i.e., first author of a publication, principal investigator of a research project) as professional development. They appeared to invest less interest in supporting colleagues’ research as co-authors;

I prefer to be the person who is the leader of the research project. Why? Because in China, cooperative research achievements are less valued. I may contribute a lot to research as a co-author, but this is not so much use if I am not the first author. So, if the first author is allocated to me, I will be more interested, no matter what kind of activities they are (14).

This appeared to effect the extent to which experienced and beginning Chinese PETEds worked together. Generally, after securing a ‘Professor’ title, Chinese PETEds’ research activity professional learning needs reduced, resulting in beginning Chinese PETEds finding opportunities to collaborate difficult;

Because I am a new teacher [PETEd], generally experienced teachers would guide me to do research. But currently some experienced teachers didn’t pay so much attention to research after they became professors. Therefore, it is hard for me to participate in research with limited research ability (10).

Conclusion

This study conveys that the majority of Chinese PETEds have strong professional learning needs for involvement in research activities. Creating opportunities for teacher educators’ academic promotion is championed by the Chinese Ministry of Education (2014), and is one way to support Chinese teacher educators’ professional development individually and as part of a professional group. Given the reality of university rankings comparing universities nationally and internationally, PETEds’ academic promotion is primarily focused on research outputs. A strong connection was evident between Chinese PETEds’ research activity professional learning needs and elevated position/title. Within the context of Chinese PETEds’ low-income living conditions, it is evident that esteem attached to position/title and financial implications served as strong motives for Chinese PETEds to prioritise specific research-related professional learning activities. While this might be true for (physical education) teacher educators in many other countries (Livingston et al. 2009, Casey and Fletcher 2017, Guberman and Mcdossi 2019, MacPhail and O’Sullivan 2019), it appeared to be an especially strong consideration in this study. One could consider that such extrinsic motives for Chinese PETEds to involve themselves in research activities would later transfer to intrinsic motives (e.g., personal interests and enjoyment). However, there was no evidence shared that Chinese PETEds intrinsically enjoyed the process of conducting research. Some Chinese PETEds were more interested in research activities that allowed research outcomes to enhance and develop their teaching practice. Interestingly, no one recognised the value of researching their own teaching practice through self-study to effectively link research with teaching and develop personal understanding and knowledge of teacher education practice (Fletcher and Casey 2014, Casey and Fletcher 2017). However, it was evident that the promotion structures ignored the importance of transformative research, i.e., research that could influence teaching practice and would, in turn, influence PSTs’ learning. We therefore recommend the need to investigate and interrogate promotional criteria which acknowledges, and rewards, a strong relationship between research outputs and effective teaching practices.

Chinese PETEds faced a challenge in seeking colleagues interested in embarking on assessment of academic promotion as a joint entity. It was evident that the majority of Chinese PETEds’ collaborative research is reliant on previously established research groups which provide a strong sense of community. Research groups generally involved supervisors and their postgraduate students and PhD candidates rather than a group of PETEds. It was consistently clear that Chinese PETEds’ research collaboration with colleagues was determined by promotional opportunities and therefore tended to act as a barrier to their collaborative professional learning and research development. Chinese PETEds were competing to be the principal investigator of research projects given this role was rewarded in terms of promotion by their institutes. There is a need for research that explores how best to encourage and support PETEds’ collaboration outside of previously established research groups.

Most studies on teacher educators’ professional development emphasise that teacher educators’ engagement in research is a key component in their professional development (Lunenberg et al. 2014). There is an expectation that teacher educators engage more with research on teacher education to inform their daily work (Cochran-Smith 2005, Loughran 2014, MacPhail and O’Sullivan 2019). However, research on teacher education was not the focus of the majority of Chinese PETEds’ research activity. They were more interested in ‘hot’ and ‘big’ research topics that they believed would result in a return of more support and funding opportunities. Some Chinese PETEds were anxious to achieve quick research success and deliberately applied for research projects that they believed were relatively easy to achieve research outcomes from. This conveys PETEds’ lack of intrinsic motivation related to enjoyment to be involved in research-related professional learning and development activities. We are concerned and worried about the value of research that PETEds conducted. While acknowledging that considerable financial support is provided by higher institutes for research activity, and that PETEds commit significant time and effort to research activities, it is evident that little is known about the impact of PETEds’ research on their work practices (Lawson 1990). It is therefore imperative that future research examine who is likely to benefit most from PETEds’ research outcomes (e.g., policy makers, PETEds, PSTs, school teachers) and in what way.

Some Chinese PETEds were provided more professional development opportunities in recent years with sufficient funding, support and time by their respective departments to undertake a PhD abroad. Similarly, in Norway, the NAFOL national graduate school provides professional learning and development activities for PhD candidates in teacher education, with the opportunity to attend research activities abroad in a bid to develop research expertise and improve their knowledge base in teacher education (European Commission 2013). Chinese PETEds with a PhD are expected to engage in research-related professional learning and development. Sufficient time was recognised as one of the Chinese PETEds’ significant needs, reporting that they were under pressure to publish high quality papers and balance their teaching workload and research, an international trend noted for (physical education) teacher educators (MacPhail et al. 2019, McEvoy et al. 2019). It is therefore imperative that further exploration is undertaken to consider how best to advise institutes on ensuring (physical education) teacher educators have sufficient time for research-related professional learning and development.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

Yueying Gong has been supported by the China Scholarship Council at the University of Limerick.

Notes on contributors

Yueying Gong

Yueying Gong is from China and currently doing her PhD at the University of Limerick, Ireland. Yueying’s research interests include (physical education) teacher educators’ professional learning, professional development and professional identity.

Ann MacPhail

Prof. Ann MacPhail is Assistant Dean Research in the Faculty of Education and Health Science at the University of Limerick, Ireland. Her research interests revolve around (physical education) teacher education, young people in sport, curriculum development in physical education, teaching, learning and assessment issues within school physical education, methodological issues in working with young people and ethnography.

Ann-Marie Young

Dr. Ann-Marie Young is the Academic Director of School Placement in the School of Education at the University of Limerick, Ireland. Her main research interests are initial teacher education with a focus on the development of the school placement process, specifically looking at the role each of the key stakeholders play in the development of student teachers and the development of a structured and formal approach to supervision in school placement.