Sustaining teacher engagement in practitioner research

ABSTRACT

This study of nine Primary School teachers of Religious Education (RE) analyses the benefits of their engagement in practitioner research (PR) and shows how that engagement can be sustained. We demonstrate the importance of enhancing the social dimension of learning through forming a community-of-practice (CoP) that enables participants to gain confidence and engage in democratic dialogue. The CoP in our project was sustained because teachers built trust with each other, were willing to talk openly about their practices and, through their common commitment to RE, contributed to the knowledge base of teaching. We conclude that engaging teachers in PR can create positive changes for schools because knowledge, interrogated by critical reflection, will be rooted in teachers’ professional understanding of the processes of teaching and learning. Further, that communities-of-practice, as social learning environments, assist in sustaining teachers’ engagement in PR by creating opportunities for teachers’ collaborative critical reflection on their taken-for-granted professional practices.

KEYWORDS:

• Communities-of-practice
• critical reflection
• teacher-researchers

Introduction

Across OECD countries teachers are expected to be informed about pedagogical research in order to teach the ‘21st century skills’ required in increasingly diverse classrooms (Guerriero 2017). In the UK reports (e.g. UCET 2019) emphasise the importance of teachers engaging in enquiry-oriented practice so they can use research to ‘investigate what is working well and what isn’t fully effective in their own practice’ (BERA-RSA 2014, 18). This is difficult because teachers work in contexts where standardisation limits their autonomy (Mockler and Casey 2015) but teacher-driven approaches to research can provide a way to reclaim teacher knowledge (Newman and Leggett 2019). This article explores how teacher-driven approaches could be embedded in professional practice using evidence from a project with nine Primary School teachers of Religious Education (RE) engaged in practitioner research (PR). The project supported participating teachers to plan and enact PR in their schools in ways that maximised their contribution to knowledge. Here, we report on the benefits of PR and the types of support that enabled this group to sustain their engagement.

Literature review

Engaging teachers in research

The value of teachers’ active involvement in research has long been recognised. For example, Stenhouse (1983) argued that teachers need to be active meaning-makers because knowledge and understanding are created in the context of research-based enquiry and Goodson (1997) pointed out that teachers should be regarded as active research partners in dialogue with critical others. More recently, Handscomb, Gu, and Varley (2014) have argued that teachers should not be seen as translators of research but rather as making an equal contribution to knowledge.

Whilst the literature shows many positive outcomes of active engagement in research including development, practice transformation, social change and school improvement (e.g. Goodnough 2011) others (e.g. Passy, Georgeson, and Gompertz 2018) argue that such initiatives should be generated and sustained at grass-roots levels. One method that promotes research-use by teachers is PR, defined as a ‘broad-based movement among school professionals to legitimate knowledge produced out of their own lived realities’ (Anderson and Herr 1999, 20). PR has been shown to be effective in enabling teachers and researchers to collaborate to ‘achieve change, redesign practices and develop … critical reflection’ (Admiraal et al. 2017, 317) as well as enabling the creation of communities where teachers share their practices and engage in democratic dialogue (Cramp and Khan 2019). PR adds teachers’ voices to the knowledge base of teaching (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 2009) and leads to positive changes in practice (Oolbekkink-Marchand, Van Der Steen, and Nijveldt 2014) because:

the producers and users of formal knowledge, who are, respectively, also the users and holders of ‘practical’ knowledge, come together to create ‘new’ contextually/situationally specific knowledge and understanding (Brown and Zhang 2017, 386)

Whilst the above literature is overwhelmingly positive about the value of PR it minimises the problems in doing it. These include limited time, opportunity and capacity to carry out research (Reis-Jorge 2007) that means teachers tend to rely on their ‘tacit knowledge … as the default position for coping with difficult teaching, learning and leadership problems’ (Dimmock 2016, 41). Other difficulties include moving from a comfortable established professional identity as teachers to a new identity as a researcher. As Hoyle (2001) comments ‘the work satisfaction of teachers consistently shows that this is mainly related to the intrinsic rewards of teaching’ so teachers need support from academics and peers, to ‘carve out a researcher identity as part of their teacher identity’ (Gewirtz et al. 2009, 581). This involves (re)construction of teachers’ theorising of practices so that systematic enquiry is at the heart of their work and they are directly involved in generating knowledge (Goodnough 2011).

The literature shows that the outcomes of PR are influenced by approaches to engaging teachers. If PR is conceptualised as focused on teachers as solvers-of-problems that have been identified elsewhere, then they become reliant on others as ‘experts’ (Gewirtz et al. 2009, 570). Whereas, if teachers are seen as ‘knowers’ then their knowledge, interactions with students and other stakeholders will lie ‘at the centre of educational transformation’ (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 2009, 124). When teachers extend their professional repertoires, they become producers of knowledge exploring and researching their own practice in ways that enhance their professional judgment and expertise (La Velle and Flores 2018).

Sustaining engagement

As both producers and consumers of knowledge, teachers need the autonomy to engage with research that enables them to break out of traditional roles and relationships (Handscomb, Gu, and Varley 2014). Cordingley (2015) identified working with trusted colleagues as a way of expanding teachers’ ‘sense of what is possible … [and] motivating teachers to persist in … professional learning and development and thus with research processes.’ Gewirtz et al. (2009) found that engagement was sustained when academics and teacher-researchers respected and valued each other’s expertise leading to the creation of genuine partnerships. Sheard and Sharples' (2016, 682) research identified the importance of ‘supporting the management and resolution of cognitive conflict’ for teachers to mitigate their anxieties about challenges to their existing approaches and beliefs. Maaranen (2009) adds that confidence grows when the context-specific nature of teachers’ practice is prioritised leading them to see the value of integrating research into their classrooms. This implies that sustaining teacher research should focus on developing knowledge that will enable participants to theorise from their ‘own practices and, in turn, transform them’ (Souto-Manning 2012, 54).

Paying attention to the social dimension and the context of teachers’ practices assumes PR will produce ‘situated knowledge’ (Lave and Wenger 1991) constructed through the connections between individuals and their social and cultural contexts. This involves not only engaging in common practices but also understanding why changes should be made as part of a community-of-practice (CoP). Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder (2002, 22) define a CoP as ‘a group of people who share a concern or passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly’. Key features of such communities are regular sharing of information; helping each other to solve problems and explore ideas; being bound by the value they find in learning together (ibid.). Literature shows that these features lead to high standards of shared practice whilst giving structure to social learning and promoting ‘practitioner-led learning and peer-to-peer support’ (Haworth 2019, 168).

As we have shown, the literature identifies the benefits of teacher engagement in research but minimises the difficulties of sustaining that engagement. In this paper our contribution to knowledge is to investigate these difficulties and how they might be minimised. The literature shows that enhancing the social dimensions of interactions is important so this will also be a focus of our research.

The context of the study

The project aim was to support teachers to research Primary RE pedagogy and curriculum design within their own professional settings. Despite RE being a statutory subject in England and Wales, meaning that all categories of school are legally obliged to deliver it, it is often perceived as ‘of less value than other subjects’ (CoRE (Commission on Religious Education) 2017, 77) which tends to draw together teachers who are passionate about RE in defence of the subject.

Teachers were recruited via local authority Primary RE networks and an information email sent to professional teacher groups. Criteria for participation in the project were current employment as a primary school teacher and experience of planning and delivering classroom RE. The sample was purposive, but not selective, because only nine teachers agreed to participate in the project. All the teachers were female and came from nine different schools in the North of England. Table 1 provides their pseudonyms and key characteristics. The teachers brought diverse professional experience to the project; two were head teachers, one was a senior leader, five were RE subject leaders or co-ordinators, two were consultants to the local authority for RE syllabus development and all were experienced in planning and delivering Primary RE classes.

Table 1. Participants’ characteristics^1.

	Year qualified	Years of Primary teaching experience	Postgraduate qualification
Amelia	2003	16	PG Diploma
Anaya	2001	16	None
Charlotte	1993	25	None
Ella	1996	24	None
Emily	2010	10	PGCE Primary
Freya	1990	28	Education Masters
Lily	1989	31	PGCE Primary
Olivia	2003	15	None
Sophia	1990	28	Education Masters

Insert Table 1 Participants’ characteristics about here

Two members of academic staff from the host university led the project and supported the teachers to plan and carry out a PR investigation. The teachers had autonomy over their choice of research within two broad boundaries: they had to relate to a teaching and learning approach in RE called ‘Big Ideas’ (Wintersgill 2015), and to a novel curriculum initiative for RE proposed by the Commission on RE (CoRE 2018, 34–35). In order to mitigate some time and resource barriers, funding from the project paid teachers’ supply cover whilst they attended project meetings.

Methodology

Our theoretical approach is based on the ‘theory of situated learning’ (Lave and Wenger 1991) where learning is viewed as participation in social practice whereby newcomers to a particular community are both absorbing, and being absorbed in, the culture of practice. Within these communities, knowledge is social and dynamic, and satisfaction is found through collective learning and knowledge creation, belonging to a motivating group and developing a shared sense of professional identity (Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder 2002). Creating communities-of-practice (CoP) involves three interrelated dimensions: a shared domain of interest through which members demonstrate commitment and competence to work towards a common goal; engagement in a community through joint activities and discussions where members share ideas, information and help; shared practice through which a repertoire of resources are jointly developed over time (Wenger-Trayner and Wenger-Trayner 2015, 2). Our approach therefore prioritised enabling teachers to talk to, and interact with, each other so that meaning could be built interactively and embedded in their common RE teaching and learning context. The emphasis was on engaging the teachers as active partners in dialogue with critical others (Gewirtz et al. 2009). This dialogical approach meant that the participants could shape the programme as it evolved.

Our CoP meetings were held in the host university beginning with two full days followed by monthly half day meetings thereafter for the duration of the project. Teachers were invited to host meetings at their schools, but unanimously preferred to meet at the university. The emphasis was on engaging the teachers as active partners in dialogue with critical others (Gewirtz et al. 2009). This dialogical approach meant teachers could shape the programme as it evolved. We started with discussions that prioritised teachers working together and identifying problems that they wanted to solve leading to them establishing their collective rules of engagement. Meetings then covered training in key principles of social science research: reflexivity; research questions; literature reviews; research methods and validity; data collection, and research ethics. Educational researchers appeared as guest speakers at our meetings, giving first-hand accounts of their own research that led to fruitful discussions between the teachers and researchers about topics and methods in educational research. Our approach to establishing the COP enabled teachers to interact with each other, with researchers from other fields of education, and with the two lead academics. It provided them with an immersive, interactive experience of educational research which they related to their common professional experience of RE teaching. Throughout the project, the teachers were cast as experts in Primary RE; as the lead academics we presented ourselves as co-researchers, alongside the teachers, offering support with research practices and protocols.

The overall project was approved by the host University’s ethics committee. Teachers’ PR projects were approved by each teacher’s senior management team and the host university. BERA (2018) ethical guidelines were followed throughout to ensure ‘an ethic of respect’ (p.5). Particular attention was made to ensuring; anonymity, informed consent, the right to withdraw, transparency, privacy.

Two points of data collection were embedded into meetings: teachers’ individual reflective journals written for twenty-minutes at the beginning of each meeting and focus group discussions held at the end of each 5-week period. In their journals, teachers were asked to reflect on: the positive and negative aspects of the project; their understanding of research; the impact of participation on their personal and professional development. Data were analysed thematically (Creswell and Poth 2018). We first identified themes from the literature on teachers and PR and then set out to find instances of these approaches in the journals paying attention to new themes that arose to allow for the probing of emerging issues. This means that in the analysis, each data-item was given equal attention in the coding process; themes were checked against each other and back to the literature. This method of analysis has the advantage of giving a holistic picture rather than a fragmented view of individual variables. The themes identified were then presented to the teachers for further exploration and validation through a focus group discussion that was audio recorded and transcribed.

The data drawn on for this study are an analysis of the first 5 weeks of each teacher’s reflective journal and of the follow-up focus group discussion. The themes from the beginning of the study were: the value of working with other teachers and gaining new skills; what was meant by ‘research’. Later the themes were: building relationships within the group and its role in enabling them to develop into teacher-researchers; the creation of a safe environment in which both skills and difficulties could be shared; the importance of the relationship between their everyday classroom experiences and their research focus. Overall, teachers foregrounded the importance of the support they received from their peers and academics in their becoming active partners in PR.

The following section presents our analysis of the journals then the focus-group discussion.

Findings

What benefits did the teachers think they would gain from participating in research and what helped them to continue to engage? Towards the beginning of the programme, they wrote that they were looking forward to the enjoyment and challenge of PR and were motivated by ‘meeting up with like-minded teachers’ (Anaya). This was especially because they hoped to have a positive influence in raising RE’s position in the curriculum. As one commented: ‘I love leading and teaching RE, so this seemed like a great opportunity to develop myself as a teacher-leader, to impact on our school and also on the RE curriculum’ (Emily). There were concerns about the time commitment because their school day was busy. Some were nervous about what was expected of them and excited about what the project could do for them as individuals and for their schools. At this early stage one wrote that ‘even in such a short time, I made some good relationships … you just don’t if there isn’t time designated’ (Lily).

Listening to other researchers discuss their research – including the rationale, methods and findings – was impactful and teachers were particularly interested in the different methods and types of data that could be used. For example:

Meeting the various ‘research specialists’ opens the subject up and has enabled me to reflect on what it is, how it can be done and what effect … [it has]. It was extremely useful to hear directly from individuals – their areas of expertise and the research they have conducted (Charlotte).

Others were more cautious and initially wrote that they didn’t do research, or have time for it, but later went on to write about how collecting and interpreting data was an everyday part of their role. Their attitudes depended on their conception of research. At one end of this continuum Charlotte wrote that: ‘research undertaken at universities feels detached from day-to-day practice in the average Primary School’ whilst Olivia considered that ‘class-based research does not have to be extra data collected outside of lessons but gathering data within normal practice’. These differing views reflect the literature; Charlotte seems to conceptualise research as about teachers as solvers-of-problems defined elsewhere (Gewirtz et al. 2009) whereas Olivia is more focused on teachers as able to theorise from their own practices (Souto-Manning 2012). The key issue for all was: ‘to be doing something worthwhile that has the potential to be influential’(Sophia). At this stage in the project, however, they did not consider themselves to be competent researchers.

By session three teachers were commenting that the group dynamic felt comfortable and purposeful; that ‘the positive feeling I get from the group helps me see that this project is worthwhile, and we can have an impact’ (Anaya). An important contribution to this was the group’s common interest in RE especially in learning from each other about how teachers ‘approached the difficulties in teaching RE’ (Ella). They also commented on the value of the time they shared with teachers from different backgrounds, but with a common enthusiasm for RE. This was particularly important for one whose only experience was of her own local authority because the group enabled her to see how ‘RE can be done differently and that’s increased my confidence about what I do’ (Anaya). One summarised the advantages that teachers sharing a common purpose experienced:

It is rare that, as a profession, we create this kind of community. Not only is it positive for sharing skills and best practice, but also it has significant impact on my wellbeing. No one really understands teacher life like other teachers (Amelia).

All valued the time and space for reflection that the project provided ‘to step back from the day-to-day and engage intellectually’ (Sophia) due to the support provided by the lead academics and the peer group. The funding for teachers’ supply cover was essential for remaining in the project because ‘there is no way that I would have been able to be involved if school had to fund my cover itself’ (Ella). Charlotte was motivated by ‘being part of a team to influence change’ whilst Lily found that the ‘provided time, space, community and guidance are key to this project’. Many teachers found that having quiet, protected time to think enabled their transition from the business of school-life to focussing on their roles as researchers. Some were motivated by their desire to improve pupils’ experience of RE especially through offering ‘more creative ways of teaching it’ (Lily). Others were committed to ‘not letting people down, supporting others and seeing it through to the end’ (Amelia) and motivated by the potential influence that they thought that their research would have on ‘putting the school’s name (and mine) out there’ (Ella).

Further into the programme the teachers were more aware of the impact engaging in PR had on their approaches to teaching. For some, this was about their role in the school’s RE curriculum so that: ‘I feel a little bit empowered to stand up for RE … as the curriculum is so crowded, other staff struggle to see RE as an important subject and give it the time that it deserves’ (Charlotte). For others, this had made them reflect on the RE curriculum and led to one ‘talking to my senior leader about how our children need to be exploring more ideas and moving forward’ (Anaya). Some considered it had a wider impact on their overall approach to their work. For example: ‘the project is helping me to develop a more reflective approach to my teaching, as it gives time for me to step back from the classroom context and think more about pedagogy and practice’ (Lily).

Other impacts that teachers highlighted included their approach to professional development (CPD), leading to one ‘using a more research-led approach and encouraging staff to engage in CPD meetings’ (Sophia). The project was expected to have wider impacts on their practice because: ‘hearing about other people’s projects helps you to reflect on what you’re doing yourself [and so] I’m using the project as my Personal Development Target’ (Lily). Others were focused on the anticipated impact of the research, for example ‘the development of my skills as researcher is exciting’ (Amelia) whilst another had realised that:

Teachers are completing research all the time, in their everyday teaching. Teachers are in a continual cycle of planning/teaching accordingly, dependent on pupil outcomes, success of lessons etc. (Olivia).

In the focus group, all the teachers expressed doubts about some aspects of PR with most being worried about having time to complete it on top of busy school life. In terms of specific research skills reviewing the literature concerned them most because this seemed to be the furthest from their day-to-day activities. On the other hand, they were more confident about identifying aspects of their practice that they could research that would have a positive impact on improving outcomes for pupils. Most felt that if a new learning activity was the focus of their research this would enable them to take a step back from their usual practices and give them time for quality reflection.

The teachers varied in their confidence about their role as practitioner-researchers. One said that ‘the project has helped me to see that I have already have a wealth of knowledge and expertise, which I can share more widely’ (Olivia) and another thought she would ‘enjoy collecting data and analysing it. I can see that the enjoyment of the final stages will be very dependent on the quality of the research design; this will motivate me to put effort into that stage’ (Freya). Others said they felt like ‘imposters’ pretending that they knew what they were doing but, because they were sharing the research journey with the whole group and supporting each other, they were given the courage to carry on. They also reminded each other that, because they knew their pupils, this made the relationship between their research and practice authentic and so it was likely to have some impact. Finally, one teacher commented that participating in the project had changed her approach as a teacher-researcher by giving her the confidence to ‘try new things and take a risk’ (Olivia).

Discussion

This section discusses the benefits teachers identified from their engagement in PR and then shows the factors that helped to sustain that engagement.

The benefits of learning through research

The teachers were in the early stages of undertaking research but already it had impacted not only in their academic and professional thinking but also at the personal level. This was because the process of sharing their ideas within the group promoted the self-discovery and self-awareness that facilitate research-use (Brown and Zhang 2017). Engaging with research that others had done and sharing the research that they planned to do meant that these initiatives were sustained at grass-roots levels (Passy, Georgeson, and Gompertz 2018) and this engagement helped teachers to develop a more open-minded approach to risk-taking and innovation (Reis-Jorge 2007). It also meant that any anxieties they had about challenges to their existing approaches and beliefs could be discussed and addressed within the group.

Our findings so far echo the literature, but we gained additional insights into how teachers’ conceptualisation of research influences their attitudes to PR. Teachers felt most comfortable about how they would collect data from their pupils and least comfortable about reviewing literature. This emphasis on classroom practices enhances Maaranen’s (2009) insights into the importance of understanding the purpose that gaining knowledge serves. In this case teachers were interested in knowledge that would enable them to change their practices and improve the RE curriculum. This also demonstrates the compromises that are necessary between academics and teachers about what counts as research. As Gewirtz et al. (2009, 581) argue, if teacher research is to be successful then academics need to recognise the importance of partnerships that are ‘characterised by respectful and critical dialogue between university staff and teacher-researchers’. This means prioritising teacher autonomy through building on the areas of research that are most relevant to their practice while simultaneously prompting them to take risks.

Finding time for PR

The literature identifies time as a constraint on teachers and clearly when time is limited what is habituated comes to the fore (Gewirtz et al. 2009). Our findings show that ‘time’ has many meanings and so contribute to understanding how lack of time can be conceptualised and addressed. For this group time had three main meanings: making choices about priorities; setting aside time to explore research; (re)conceptualising their professional identities to incorporate research.

These barriers were mitigated in several ways. The first was through financing cover for the teachers’ schools so that they could develop their research role. This was a useful, practical contribution. It signalled that involving the teachers in PR was important to the host university and therefore enhanced the status of their planned PR for both the teachers and their schools. This meant that they were able to come together to create knowledge and understanding that was specific to their own situation (Brown and Zhang 2017). Secondly, creating time for PR was driven by participants’ passion for RE especially so they could engage in debates about how it could be better understood in the wider education community. This motivated their strong interest in contributing to change in their schools because they expected the interventions they were researching would make a difference. Finally, teachers made time for PR because they were motivated by their mutual commitment to each other, not only for their research, but also for broader professional support and well-being as they embarked on researching their own practices.

Critical reflection

Teachers were concerned about putting aside their strongly established professional roles as teachers and taking on new roles as beginning researcher-teachers engaged in critical reflection on their taken-for-granted practices. The community-of-practice provided a safe space for this ‘resolution of cognitive conflict’ (Sheard and Sharples 2016, 682) due to the support of the group, and this created a context for collegial conversations about learning and teaching. These conversations enhanced teachers’ confidence about the possibilities of pursuing research into the issues that interested them. PR made a tangible difference to their own classroom approaches which meant that they reflected more deeply on their own and their colleagues’ teaching practices. As a result, engagement in PR contributed to a shift in their identities and changed not only how they felt about themselves but also how others, both inside and outside the school, saw them as knowledgeable people ‘at the centre of educational transformation’ (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 2009, 124). This experience mediated how they interrogated their existing ways of working and prompted a questioning approach to practice and a greater understanding of the implications of their work in RE. Their reflective skills were enhanced because they were able to step back from the day-to-day classroom context and critique pedagogy and practice. Working on PR with colleagues who shared a commitment to RE enabled teachers to re-assess their preconceptions and develop a more critical stance.

Forming a community of practice

Many of these changes in the teachers’ understanding of themselves as researchers were made possible because of the development of the social dimensions of their activities that reflected the teachers’ shared concerns and common goals. In order to explore this, we use the three dimensions developed by Wenger-Trayner and Wenger-Trayner (2015) to show how this group formed a community-of-practice that sustained their engagement in PR.

1) The shared domain of interest in RE

The teachers regarded RE as a neglected area of the curriculum and so they wanted to engage with others who were passionate about it. They valued their existing competence in this area but were open to learning from each other. The teachers considered that the group validated their expertise, and this led to a shared confidence in the importance of RE. This highlights the potential of PR for teachers who are engaging in shared domains of practice because it can foster connections across schools around the common goal of enhancing the learning experiences of pupils (Goodnough 2011).

2) Becoming a community

The teachers engaged in meaningful discussions about their practice, helped each other and shared information about their teaching. The relationships they built enabled them to learn from each other and they valued the expertise that each brought. They interacted and learnt together through their focus on RE in their classroom teaching practices. The group demonstrated their potential for partnership-working through their exploration of the RE curriculum, the shared responsibility they took for communicating their ideas about its importance across their schools and providing support for the ideas they developed together. This was especially through discussing their actual practices and exploring the curricular constraints they were working within (Admiraal et al. 2017).

3) Shared practice

The teachers, through their sustained interaction, developed shared resources including experiences, methods of teaching and evaluating their practice and ways of addressing problems. In the course of all these conversations, they developed ideas about engaging pupils in RE that had the potential to become a shared repertoire for practice.

This required investing time and energy into creating contextually appropriate teaching and learning approaches and practices so that they could become part of a team capable of influencing change in RE.

Conclusion

Teachers’ engagement in PR is not easy, especially if funding is limited. However, our research corroborates literature showing that it is worth the investment because of the positive impacts it can have on teachers’ professional development (Leat, Reid, and Lofthouse 2015) and, consequently, positive changes for pupils, schools and the wider education community. This is because when PR is rooted in teachers’ professional understanding and allows for professional practice to be interrogated through the lens of critical reflection, it can lead to knowledge creation that has practical applications in teachers’ settings. Our findings further show that the value of integrating research into their day-to-day practice led teachers to reflect on a more research-led approach to professional development and enabled them to recognise that they had a wealth of expertise that could be shared more widely. This prepared them to be innovative and take risks. Our research also demonstrates that bringing together teachers who are engaged in shared domains of practice fosters connections across schools and can enhance the learning experiences of pupils.

Our specific contribution to knowledge about PR is how teachers’ engagement can be sustained. Our findings show that creating a safe but challenging community in which teachers were encouraged to collaboratively question everyday practices not only empowered them to contribute to the knowledge base of teaching, but also to recognise the deep value of these contributions. This endorsement of the value of their research, resonating through the group, kept them motivated. We have shown the importance that forming a community-of-practice, which enhances the social dimension of learning, has in enabling teachers to gain confidence and engage in democratic dialogue. We have also identified the role that time plays in maintaining or preventing engagement in PR and shown that the three dimensions of: making choices about priorities; setting aside time to explore research; (re)conceptualising professional identities to incorporate research; all need to be addressed if PR programmes are to be successful.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Culham St Gabriel’s Trust [299].

Notes

1. All names are pseudonyms