Internship integrated practitioner research projects foster student teachers’ professional learning and research orientation: a mixed-methods study in initial teacher education

ABSTRACT

Practitioner research as one approach of research-based learning in teacher education aims at the enhancement of student teachers’ professional learning and research orientation. As current research does not provide sufficiently detailed and generalisable findings about the effects of internship integrated practitioner research, the present mixed-methods study combines qualitative and quantitative methods to deliver valuable insights. Content analysis of qualitative data of a first survey (n = 312) shows that student teachers solely report a development of their practise and do not report effects on their research orientation when openly asked. Factor analysis of quantitative data of a second survey (n = 124) with closed questions about practise- and research-orientated effects reveals four overarching factors: structuring of teaching, researching, communicating during teaching, and learner centred teaching. Results of the second survey demonstrate benefits in all factors. The findings provide indications that professional learning and research orientation is related to practitioner research.

KEYWORDS:

• Research based learning
• practitioner research
• initial teacher education
• internship

1 Introduction

The OECD (2018) encourages educational systems to create learning environments, which enhance the development of every person’s potential and enable learners’ agency in their personal education with the aim of mobilising individual knowledge, skills and values in the evolving world of the 21^st century. Therefore, teachers must be able to develop strategies to enable the individual learner to tackle the forthcoming environmental, economic and social challenges. To this end, teachers have to acquire appropriate research-based knowledge (OECD 2017) and to transfer this knowledge to action (Levin 2013) in order to develop and implement adaptive and research-based teaching practises. Thus, initial teacher education should prepare prospective teachers for these challenges by promoting professional learning through research orientation (Barnett 2000; Brew 2006; Darling–Hammond, Chung Wei, and Andree 2010). Namely, research-based learning is one approach of higher education didactics to meet this goal and is therefore becoming an increasingly important aim of educational policies and institutions (Brew 2006; Darling–Hammond 2017).

Nevertheless, there is a lack of studies investigating whether research-based learning can promote student teachers’ professional learning and research orientation during teacher education (e.g. Turner, Wuetherick, and Healy 2008; Healy et al. 2010; Pollmanns et al. 2018). Studies do hint that professional learning and research orientation can be enhanced through research-based learning; however, studies do not afford sufficiently detailed and generalisable findings concerning effects regarding these goals (Hofer 2013; Herzmann and Liegmann 2018). Therefore, the present study aims to deliver more detailed and more generalisable insights on the effects of research-based learning during teacher education and presents overarching factors of effects from which student teachers can benefit.

Practitioner research as an approach of research-based learning in teacher education

Research-based learning is defined as one way of engaging undergraduate students in inquiry and research with a focus on students’ active participation in the research process (Healy and Jenkins 2009). Research-based learning is expected to have a strong impact on undergraduate students’ discipline-specific professional learning through developing their abilities to investigate problems, construct knowledge and make decisions on a rational basis (Healy 2005; Healy and Jenkins 2009; Healy et al. 2010). Unfortunately, in the context of teacher education programmes, other means of engaging student teachers in inquiry and research that do not require their active involvement are strongly overrepresented (Munthe and Rogne 2015). Therefore, it seems wise to integrate more research-based learning into teacher education.

Professional learning and research orientation through practitioner research

We advocate for the implementation of practitioner research, which is seen as one research-based learning approach (Healy and Jenkins 2009; Cochran–Smith and Lytle 2009; Fichten and Meyer 2014) that encompasses genres and forms of research where practitioners systematically conduct research on topics related to their professional fields, always with the aim of producing knowledge for application and use within local contexts (Borko, Liston, and Whitcomb 2007; Cochran–Smith and Lytle 2009; Fichten and Meyer 2014). Within the educational context of schools, practitioner research refers to teachers and prospective teachers engaging within a professional community in a continuous process of reflecting on and examining their practise to develop local knowledge, enhance their own professionalisation, and the further development of school and teaching practises (Altrichter 2005; Cochran–Smith and Lytle 2009; Fichten and Meyer 2014).

Practitioner research of prospective teachers during internships fulfils the two central objectives pursued through the implementation of research-based learning in teacher education: (1) the promotion of student teachers’ professional learning through (2) fostering research orientation (Hofer 2013). Consequently, practitioner research can be seen as a driving force which links the enhancement of professional learning with the development of research orientation. Professional learning is defined as a ‘process of practical action in which knowledge is enacted in reflecting and developing a specific practice’ (Altrichter 2005, 11). Research orientation can be seen as being able to proficiently apply research methods (Hofer 2013) and is expected to enhance the reflection and development of practise. Practitioner research requires learning environments that enable student teachers to reflect on, explore and develop their own practise (Altrichter, Posch, and Spann 2018). Hence, internships seem to be appropriate settings for the implementation of this type of practitioner research projects (Altrichter 2003; Altrichter, Posch, and Spann 2018). Thus, internship integrated practitioner research is expected to have noteworthy effects on student teachers’ professional learning and research orientation.

Effects of practitioner research in teacher education

With regard to the expectations concerning research-based learning, a growing body of research addresses effects after conducting internship integrated practitioner research projects in the context of teacher education (e.g. Levin and Rock 2003; Smith and Sela 2005; Burns 2010, 2009; Ulvik 2014; Ulvik, Riese, and Roness 2017; Yan 2017). In fact, these studies set different foci and provide various results on the effects and obstacles regarding the above-mentioned central objectives of research-based learning.

(1) Professional learning: A number of studies report positive effects of research-based learning on professional development (Smith and Sela 2005; Kitchen and Stevens 2008), the development of the attitude that professional growth is a personal responsibility (Levin and Rock 2003), the enhancement of professional knowledge (Goh and Loh 2013), professional practise (Ulvik and Riese 2016; Ulvik, Riese, and Roness 2017), and the understanding of the relationship between professional learning and the understanding of practise and its conditions (Wrench and Paige 2019). Thus, studies indicate that research-based learning can lead to enhanced professionalisation. But just a few studies provide findings about concrete effects on the two elements of professional learning: (a) reflecting on and (b) developing a specific practise:

(a) Although numerous studies deliver hints concerning the promotion of reflection upon practise, these studies mostly indicate general effects (Levin and Rock 2003; Smith and Sela 2005). There is a lack of studies dealing with concrete descriptions of reflection themes such as Kotsopoulos, Mueller, and Buzza (2012) do. In contrast, there are more studies focusing on obstacles student teachers deal with during research-based learning. Along this line, studies show that prospective teachers tend to struggle during their research projects when they try to distance themselves from their practise to reflect upon it (Pollmanns et al. 2018). Reflection often remains vague and does not encourage student teachers to develop strategies for dealing with challenging situations they encounter (Katsarou and Tsafos 2013; Yan 2017).

(b) There is also a lack of evidence about concrete effects concerning the development of specific practises. Although there are studies showing that practitioner research projects can enhance subject-orientated knowledge on the research topic (Levin and Rock 2003; Goh and Loh 2013; Fichten and Moschner 2009), the concrete research topics and concrete effects of development in specific practise areas are rarely investigated (Ulvik 2014). Therefore, more research is needed as findings show that research topics should be subjectively relevant to student teachers in order to foster knowledge acquisition (Heissenberger 2016). Additionally, more findings providing insights into the concrete areas of effects on the development of practises are lacking, as there is still little evidence available, whether they can be promoted through research-based learning.

(2) Research orientation: A number of investigations reveal that research competences can be fostered through research-based learning during internships (Levin and Rock 2003; Smith and Sela 2005; Kitchen and Stevens 2008; Katsarou and Tsafos 2013; White et al. 2015; Ulvik, Riese, and Roness 2017; Katwijk Van et al. 2019). Again, there is a lack of studies reporting details about achieved outcomes. The few findings from qualitative research indicate that research-based learning can promote research competences like establishing theoretical frameworks, relating previous research to one’s own research (Adfal and Spernes 2018), elaborating research instruments, collecting, analysing and discussing data (Fichten and Moschner 2009; Yan 2017). These results are always relativised because many student teachers face obstacles in developing these competences (Yan 2017; Adfal and Spernes 2018). As frequently reported, these problems may arise because of negative and conflicting views concerning research, lack of time to do research, high effort required to conduct research, and difficulties to combine researching and teaching during the same internship (Kotsopoulos, Mueller, and Buzza 2012; Mc Quillan, Welch, and Barnatt 2012; Brenneke et al. 2018). At the same time, practitioner research is regarded to be particularly useful, if it is practise relevant (Brenneke et al. 2018) and promotes reflection and the development of teaching (Heissenberger 2016; Smith and Sela 2005; Kitchen and Stevens 2008). In contrast, findings indicate that many student teachers struggle to relate their research-based activities to the knowledge and skills they need for their practise (Adfal and Spernes 2018). Taken together, there are too few studies showing if and which research competences can be promoted through research-based learning, whereas several studies reveal various obstacles with the potential to disturb this acquisition process. Therefore, more research is needed to investigate if the further development of research orientation, as one central goal of research-based learning, can be promoted by integrating this approach into teacher education.

Another critical issue concerning the current literature is that studies focusing on effects of research-based learning during teacher education are mainly based on studies with smaller samples and primarily follow solely qualitative approaches (Smith and Sela 2005; Kitchen and Stevens 2008; Mc Quillan, Welch, and Barnatt 2012; Ulvik 2014; Ryan, Young, and Kraglund–Gauthier 2017).

Qualitative methods are often used to gain insight into student teachers’ views about the perceived effects they spontaneously report at the point of data collection. Although the respective data analyses indicate valuable issues of relevance to the respondents, possible effects, which the respondents have not thought of during the examination, cannot be derived. Additionally, small samples often do not deliver broad insights and do not allow the application of statistical methods. Therefore, more comprehensive and more generalisable results can be expected through larger samples and the combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods, which has been considered in only a few studies (Kotsopoulos, Mueller, and Buzza 2012; White et al. 2015).

With this background in mind, this article offers results from a mixed-methods study with broader samples about a teacher education integrated practitioner research concept aiming at giving, on the one hand, more detailed and, on the other hand, more generalisable insights into student teachers’ perspective concerning the effects of practitioner research.

2 Research project: effects through practitioner research

Given the challenges for the upcoming educational systems and the promising results of research-based learning, the concept Personalised Professionalisation in Pedagogical Fields through Practitioner Research (PPS-PR) was created and implemented at the University College for Teacher Education Styria in the Bachelor Study for Primary School Education. The concept PPS-PR refers to the approach of practitioner research (Cochran–Smith and Lytle 2009; Fichten and Meyer 2014; Altrichter, Posch, and Somekh 2005) and therefore intends to provide a learning environment that promotes professional learning and research orientation of prospective teachers (Altrichter 2003; Hofer 2013). PPS-PR was embedded in a mixed methods research design to scrutinise these effects of practitioner research projects.

Personalised Professionalisation in Pedagogical Fields through Practitioner Research (PPS-PR): a concrete concept of research based learning

As there is a lack of literature addressing concrete programmes of research-based learning in the context of teacher education (Munthe and Rogne 2015; Adfal and Spernes 2018), a concrete description of the concept PPS-PR is presented in the following section.

All student teachers participating in our surveys carried out practitioner research projects according to PPS-PR. The concept envisages that student teachers conduct these projects about subjectively relevant topics during internships in primary schools. In the course of their projects, student teachers go through all the stages of the practitioner research processes, as described by Altrichter and colleagues (Altrichter, Posch, and Somekh 2005; Altrichter and Posch 2007). During the research processes, student teachers are assigned to internship advisors who are professors or lecturers at the University College for Teacher Education Styria working in the area of Primary School Education. Internship advisors assume the role of critical friends (Altrichter and Posch 2007; Wenergren 2016) by supervising student teachers’ reflection about their practise and delivering individualised topic-related didactical-methodical and research-orientated support:

(a) Defining a starting point: During the first meeting with internship advisors at the beginning of each semester, student teachers receive semester-adequate input about practitioner research and quality of teaching and are prompted to find their subjectively relevant research topics. Corresponding to the practitioner research approach (Altrichter and Posch 2007), research topics are chosen for one of two reasons: (1) either because the topic is personally meaningful or (2) due to individual interest in further knowledge or research. Thus, research topics are simultaneously developmental tasks (Altrichter 2003), which can be seen as ‘biographically relevant and subjectively necessary challenges’ (Jank and Meyer 2011, 170). This view agrees with the model of personalising learning that labels learning as a personal, self-regulated process (Coates and West–Burnham 2005).

(b) Clarifying the situation: After the research topic is chosen, student teachers ascertain if it is possible to work on their topics in the specific situation of the internship class. If it is not possible, another topic is selected.

(c) Developing action and research strategies: Each student teacher has to conduct literature research to establish the rationale for his or her choice of topic, develop an evidence-based draft for action strategies for practise, a related research question and a research design. These drafts are discussed and further developed during a second research meeting in the professional community of the team of fellow students and advisor.

(d) Implementing action strategies in practise, collecting, analysing and presenting data: Student teachers realise their topic-related teaching activities in their internships and examine the effects of these activities by collecting and analysing data. The research projects, their discussion and conclusions regarding future practise are summarised in ‘Reflective Papers’, presented, and discussed in a third meeting in their professional community (Heissenberger and Matischek–Jauk 2019).

Research question

The concept was developed to enhance student teachers’ (1) professional learning and (2) research orientation (Altrichter 2003; Hofer 2013). Therefore, the global research question is: which effects concerning professional learning and research orientation occur and how highly are they rated after the conduction of practitioner research from the perspective of student teachers?

As former studies seldom report findings about detailed effects through internship integrated practitioner research, it is of particular interest which concrete effects are so relevant from the perspective of student teachers that they report them in open questions and how highly the effects are rated on average when they are asked to answer closed questions. Thereby, the analysis of qualitative data from a first, larger sample is expected to bring broad information about the effects student teachers consider to be relevant. The analysis of quantitative data from a second, sufficiently large sample shall deliver more generalisable findings to which extent student teachers benefited in regard to the effects on professional learning and research orientation. Due to the current state of research, which does not provide evidence based overarching areas of effects through practitioner research, it is furthermore analysed, if clearly distinguishable factors of effects of this research approach can be derived from the data. In doing so, we aim to contribute to the understanding of research-based learning of student teachers over and above existing literature by 1) combining the strengths of qualitative and quantitative research methodologies, 2) using larger sample sizes, and 3) a programme grounded in theory.

Research design and methods

In this mixed methods study, qualitative and quantitative methods were logically combined in the frame of the research design in order to collect, analyse and combine two forms of data to answer the research questions (Creswell and Plano Clark 2018). The research was conducted in two phases following an exploratory sequential design. Data collected during the first phase was analysed in order to determine the instruments for the second research phase.

Based on qualitative results of phase 1, a quantitative feature for phase 2 was developed. For the present study, qualitative data were collected on effects from student teachers’ perspective in the first phase. These data were analysed by means of qualitative content analysis containing category development (Kuckartz 2014). In a second phase, quantitative items were constructed based on the derived categories from phase 1. If analysis of qualitative data revealed that relevant issues of current literature and curricula standards were not comprised in the first phase’s categories, respective quantitative items for the questionnaire during phase 2 were additionally derived. Factor analysis (Bortz 2005) of the quantitative data was conducted in phase 2 to determine the dimensions of the effects from the student teachers’ viewpoint after conducting practitioner research.

Design and methods of phase 1

The sample of the first cohort for the qualitative phase 1 consisted of 312 student teachers (Bachelor for Primary School Education). 353 student teachers, who conducted practitioner research projects in the academic year 2015/16, were invited to participate in the study during the third meeting. The response rate was 88.4%. The sample consisted of 17.6% male and 82.4% female participants. As the collection of data about age and gender would have led to a non-anonymous survey, respondents did not provide their age.

The online questionnaire consisted of 16 items, which addressed research topics, motives, methods, effects, conclusions for future practise, long-term benefits and feedback about support. Effects from the perspective of student teachers that are reported in the present paper were inquired with one open question: ‘Describe the effects that occurred at the end of the practitioner research project!’

Qualitative content analysis containing category development (Kuckartz 2014) was performed to analyse responses on the effects from the student teachers’ perspective to this question. Categories (see 3.1.) were derived inductively (e.g. classroom management). First, three independent coding teams created categories. In order to ensure appropriate quality of the coding process, a final category system was cooperatively developed in a further step by these three teams (Kuckartz 2014). This category system was applied within the content analysis of all data with MAXQDA. Response frequencies were calculated per category (Kuckartz 2014). In numerous cases, comprehensive responses required multiple codings per person and/or category. Cohen's Kappa (0.74) was calculated and indicates a substantial inter-rater reliability.

Design and methods of phase 2

Results of phase 1 were the base for developing a second questionnaire. The research team drafted this questionnaire and incorporated the feedback of four student teachers and two subject-matter experts.

The instrument contained 72 items addressing the same issues as in phase 1 in order to collect primarily quantitative data in phase 2.¹ The present paper deals with 22 closed questions (see 3.2) referring to the effects after conducting the practitioner research. Following the key features of Creswell and Plano Clark (2018), 17 of these 22 items concerning effects for the questionnaire of phase 2 were created by using the qualitative results about effects from phase 1: As all effect-related categories (phase 1) correspond with essential key features reported in appropriate specialist literature (Helmke 2012; Meyer 2016), student teachers solely reported practise related effects in phase 1. Furthermore, results of phase 1 indicate that student teachers considered all essential features of effective teaching practise listed in pertinent literature (Helmke 2012; Meyer 2016). Therefore, practise related items of the questionnaire (phase 2) were exclusively derived from the categories and responses from the first survey and it was not necessary to construct additional items from the literature in order to consider all relevant features of effective teaching. All categories from phase 1 were considered by creating corresponding items for phase 2. The items were constructed closely based upon typical responses from the categories (see 3.1.). For example, the item Now I can use standard language when teaching was derived from typical answers like ‘I am able to switch from dialect to standard language without major problems’ (5^th semester; questionnaire 99). Items were included in the questionnaire when at least 10 responses from the first survey were assigned to a category or when the responses represented key features of effective teaching mentioned in literature (Brophy 2000; Helmke 2012; Meyer 2016).

Five further items were derived from literature: As research related effects were not mentioned by the respondents in phase 1, these items about research competences were added based on literature (Meyer 2003) and curricula standards (Entwicklungsverbund Süd-Ost 2018). The items were assessed on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (fully applies) to 4 (does not apply at all).

134 student teachers (Bachelor Study for Primary School Education) of another, second cohort were asked to participate in this second-phase online survey after completing practitioner research projects during the third meeting. The final sample contained 124 participants, with a response rate of 92.5%. 79.84% female and 20.16% male student teachers participated in the survey.

Ratings of the 22 closed questions were analysed with an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to determine if there was an underlying higher-order structure to the effects. First, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin criterion was used to assess if the data was suited for an EFA. Then, factors were extracted using the eigenvalue greater than unity criteria. The factors were then rotated with a Varimax rotation.² Finally, the benefits were assigned to their factor based on their highest factor loading, and Cronbach’s α and items’ part-whole correlations were used to assess if the factor was sufficiently internal consistent.

3 Results

Results of phase 1: qualitative data collection on effects

Table 1 shows the inductively derived categories for the reported effects of practitioner research from the perspective of student teachers of the first cohort after PPR-PR. The absolute and relative frequencies are given for each category.

Table 1. Results of the qualitative data for the learning outcomes from the perspective of student teachers (n = 312) (f = frequency).

Category	f	f%
classroom-management	62	19,9%
teacher language	31	9,9%
teacher clarity	30	9,6%
variety of methods	29	9,3%
lesson preparation	29	9,3%
self-assurance	29	9,3%
differentiation and individualisation	23	7,4%
active learning	14	4,5%
standard script	13	4,2%
students´ metacognition	5	1,6%
positive reinforcement	3	1,0%
testing of learning outcomes	2	0,6%
self-perception	2	0,6%
classroom climate	2	0,6%
dealing with work refusal	1	0,3%
no results	8	2,6%

Effects of the category classroom management were reported most frequently. Typical outcomes concerning this category are the effective use of strategies for dealing with teaching troubles or nonverbal classroom management, for example ‘ … now I know how to establish anchors efficiently’ (5^th semester; questionnaire 35). Furthermore, student teachers note that they learned to require that pupils follow the rules, for example ‘to wait until students listen before something is announced’ (3^rd semester; questionnaire 78). Concerning the category teacher language, participants mention that they learned to manage the ‘switch from dialect to standard language without major problems’ (5^th semester; questionnaire 99) and to ‘modulate the voice adequately’ (5^th semester, questionnaire 95). Responses concerning teacher clarity indicate that ‘In the end it became easy to give clear instructions off the bat without thinking too long’ (5^th semester; questionnaire 40). Additionally, respondents note that ‘the application of teaching methods leads to a more extensive personal pool of methods’ (5^th semester; questionnaire 68). Beyond that, statements show that a variety of methods can be adequately implemented in teaching:

“I have prepared my lessons and selected different methods, so that the students’ learning requirements were taken into account. Phases of direct instruction were followed by individual or partner work. It is important that children are able to learn on their own, and also in teams. Do not use too few and do not use to many methods in a lesson” (4^th semester, questionnaire 44).

Additionally, student teachers report an improved structure of ‘lesson preparation and, as a consequence, better teaching’ (5^th semester; questionnaire 32) and related to this topic ‘improved (…) time management skills’ (5^th semester; questionnaire 58). Strengthened self-assurance during teaching is often attributed to higher flexibility in unforeseen situations. Enhanced competences in dealing with differentiation and individualisation are also stated. Student teachers report that ‘interests and potentials’ (4^th semester, questionnaire 89) as well as ‘strengths and weaknesses of students can be identified better’ (4^rd semester; questionnaire 33). Furthermore, it became easier ‘to consider students’ needs when preparing lessons’ (5^th semester; questionnaire 86) and ‘to create differentiated teaching tools, which were applied well during the lessons’ (4^th semester; questionnaire 30). Besides, the effective application of active learning settings and improved standard script were mentioned. Both categories represent key issues in Austrian primary schools. Outcomes concerning students’ metacognition, positive reinforcement, testing of learning outcomes, self-perception, classroom climate and dealing with work refusal were described by fewer respondents.

On the other hand, 10 student teachers (~3.2%) report no effects. These student teachers state that their research results indicate no improvements in the area of their subjectively relevant topic. Some student teachers explain the lack of improvement by mentioning problems with their time management. Others describe unfavourable conditions:

“It was difficult to differentiate in the way I wanted. It happened rather often that it was necessary to individualise by offering additional tasks because it was easier and less work. In addition to that, my mentor teacher laid out a very strict framework, so that there was little space for individualisation” (3^th semester; questionnaire 85).

Results of phase 2: quantitative data collection on effects

The quantitative data on the effects of practitioner research from the perspective of student teachers were analysed by means of exploratory factor analysis. The aim of the exploratory factor analysis was to determine if there was an underlying higher-order structure to the effects. The intercorrelations of the 22 items (closed questions) were suited for exploratory factor analysis, as the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin criterion was sufficiently high (KMO = 0.86). Five factors could be extracted with eigenvalues larger than unity. The five factors accounted for 66.19% of the variance. The communalities were sufficiently high with values ranging between .48 and .82. Closer inspection of the fifth factor showed only factor loadings below ≤ .47, with no item loading highest on this factor. Consequently, this fifth factor was not interpreted. The four factors accounting for 61.04% of the variance. The four factors with their assigned items and descriptive statistics are shown in Table 2. All loadings are detailed in of the Supplement.

Table 2. Results of the exploratory factor analyses on the quantitative data from phase 2 for each factor, the corresponding items are given in descending order of their factor loading. Additionally, descriptive statistics are given for each factor.

Factor	Item (Now I can…)	α	M	SD	Skewness	Kurtosis
Learner centred teaching		.85	2.88	0.70	−0.88	0.11
	… plan teaching phases based on the students’ interests or wishes
	… assess the interests or wishes of the students regarding the lessons
	… implement measures to deal with heterogeneity
	… achieve goals with different teaching methods
	… identify the individual learning requirements of the pupils
	… promote cooperation between pupils
	… use Active Learning methods to achieve specific goals in class
Communicating during teaching		.84	3.01	0.75	−1.11	0.71
	… modulate my voice according to the situation
	… use standard language when teaching
	… give comprehensible instructions to students
	… ensure the observance of the rules of conversation
	… appropriately use measures of classroom management
Research		.83	3.23	0.48	−0.17	−0.18
	… use research methods to collect data
	… use methods to evaluate data
	… interpret research results
	… formulate research questions
	… draw conclusions from research findings for my own teaching
Structuring of teaching		.75	3.07	0.73	−1.01	0.77
	… realistically plan the time structure of lessons
	… plan my lessons in a structured way
	… implement the structure of my lessons as planned.
-		-	-	-	-	-
	… flexibly deviate from my lesson planning in unforeseen situations
	… write texts by hand in the Austrian school script

Note. Theoretical range of means from 1 = does not apply at all to 4 = fully applies

The items were translated from their original version into English by the authors.

Table 3. Comparison and relation of the four factors descripted in Table 2. In the upper triangle, the average scale level is compared by giving Cohen’s d for each pairwise comparison (bold d are also significant with p < .05). In the lower triangle, the correlations of the scales are given (bold r are significant with p < .05) .

	1	2	3	4
1. Learner centred teaching	-	−0.30	−0.63	−0.44
2. Communicating during teaching	.609	-	−0.37	−0.12
3. Research	.156	.160	-	0.25
4. Structuring of teaching	.624	.560	−.007	-

Note. With n = 124, correlations exceeding |.176|are significant (p < .05).

Note. Cohen’s d is based on t-values of dependent t-tests, thereby accounting for the dependencies of the compared means and that within-subject designs have higher power than between-subject designs.

Note. The sign of Cohen’s d should be interpreted along the rows of the table. For example, the mean comparison of 1. and 2. (d = −0.30) denotes that 1. was lower than 2.

The first factor was comprised of seven items all related to learner centred teaching. The highest loading item was to plan teaching phases based on the students’ interests or wishes. The seven items had factor loadings between λ = .70 and λ = .75, a Cronbach’s α of .85, and part-whole correlations ranging from .36 to .70.

The second factor was made up of five items, which were all related to communicating during teaching. The item with the highest factor loading was to modulate my voice according to the situation. The five items had factor loadings between λ = .61 and λ = .79, a Cronbach’s α of .84, and part-whole correlations ranging from .53 to .75.

The third factor encompassed five items, which were all related to researching. The item with the highest factor loading was to use methods of practitioner research to collect data. The five items had factor loadings between λ = .65 and λ = .86, a Cronbach’s α of .83, and part-whole correlations ranging from .52 to .74.

The fourth and final factor was made up only three items. These three items were all related to the structuring of teaching. The item with the highest loading factor was to realistically plan the time structure of lessons. The three items had factor loadings between λ = .65 and λ = 79, a Cronbach’s α of .75, and part-whole correlations ranging from .54 to .62.

Two items could not be unambiguously assigned to any factor. These were the items to flexibly deviate from my lesson planning in unforeseen situations and to write texts by hand in the Austrian school script. Both exhibited cross loadings on the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd factor with the highest factor loading being λ = .48 and λ = .45, respectively.

As can be seen in Table 2, on average all students scored rather high on the four factors (2.88 ≤ M ≤ 3.23 on a 4-point Likert scale with higher values meaning more self-reported benefit). The standard deviation for all four factor means were below one point on the response scale. Table 3 shows the comparison of these average benefits (upper triangle). We could observe the lowest self-reported benefit for Learner centred teaching. This benefit was smaller than the other benefits by small to medium effects (0.30 ≤ |d| ≤ 0.63). By contrast, Researching was the highest self-reported benefit exceeding the others by small to medium effects (0.25 ≤ |d| ≤ 0.63). Please note that these mean differences of benefits should not be interpreted in a causal way.

Table 3 also gives the correlations of the four factors (lower triangle). Results showed that Structuring of teaching was positively related to Learner centred teaching (r = .624) and Communicating during teaching (r = 560). The latter two were also positively related to each other (r = .609). No other relations could be found.

4 Discussion

The purpose of this mixed methods study was to assess effects of internship integrated practitioner research on professional learning and research orientation from the perspective of student teachers.

Higher relevance of practise related effects

In the first qualitative phase, 16 categories of effects of practitioner research were found. In line with other findings (Levin and Rock 2003; Smith and Sela 2005; Kitchen and Stevens 2008; Mc Quillan, Welch, and Barnatt 2012; Ulvik 2014) the phase 1’s results show positive effects on primarily one aspect of professional learning – the development of practise. As the responses solely refer to effects concerning this aspect, it can be assumed that the development of practise is of high relevance to student teachers. Corroborating other studies (Brenneke et al. 2018; Brandhorst et al. 2018), this emphasis reveals a primacy of practise: student teachers mainly want to learn how to teach. Research based learning is only seen as legitimated if it is useful for practise.

However, practise related effects seem to be of higher importance to student teachers during their first teaching experiences in a kind of ‘survival stage’ (Fuller and Bown 1975) or ‘reality shock’ in school placements (Dicke et al. 2016;). Biographically orientated professionalisation approaches identify subjectively relevant tasks as important drivers for personalised professional development (Terhart 2011; Jank and Meyer 2011). Therefore, more research is needed to gain broader insights into which topics are relevant to student teachers during their teacher education (e.g. Ostermann 2015).

Development of practise related effects through practitioner research projects

While analysis of phase 1 gives insights into categories of effects and their frequencies, they do not show the effects’ propensity. Furthermore, the analysis of phase 1 does not permit the conclusion if further competences were fostered, for example regarding research related competences. Therefore, quantitative data with concrete closed questions was collected in phase 2.

The quantitative follow up phase indicates relatively high mean values in four overarching factors of effects through practitioner research. The results reveal a notable development of practise regarding the three factors structuring of teaching, communication during teaching and learner centred teaching.

Thereby, it is of particular interest why the factor structuring of teaching shows the second highest average rating in phase 2 although research topics concerning this factor were chosen more frequently in phase 1 than in phase 2 (Heissenberger 2019). This seems to contradict the results from phase 1 and other studies showing that research topics and effects concerning lesson preparation are not reported very frequently (e.g. Ostermann 2015). The low frequency in phase 1 could imply that effects related to lesson preparation do not seem to be of particular relevance to student teachers and are therefore not mentioned that often in response to open questions. It is possible that the direct questions in phase 2 cause the respondents to become aware of the remarkable effects concerning this factor.

In phase 1, student teachers frequently report effects concerning classroom management, teacher language and teacher clarity, which are assigned to the factor communication during teaching. The high frequency only shows that numerous respondents noticed effects and that these effects were important enough to be mentioned. Results of phase 2 complement these findings and show that the average rating of the communication factor was lower than that of other factors. This finding may be attributed to the research topics chosen by the student teachers. Keller–Schneider and Hericks (2019) showed that adaptive classroom management is a particularly challenging task for student teachers. Accordingly, research topics in this area may elicit lower effects.

Effects assigned to the factor with the lowest mean in phase 2 – learner centred teaching – were reported least during the first study phase. Topics about learner centred teaching were not considered very frequently in student teachers’ research projects in neither of the study phases (Heissenberger 2019), which may have caused the lower mean effects concerning this factor. However, the lower consideration of these topics and the lower average ratings are possibly due to the higher challenges in working practically on these tasks. Keller–Schneider and Hericks (2019) deliver corresponding results by identifying teaching to individual needs as the most challenging task for beginning teachers.

Finally, a few student teachers report in phase 1 that no practise related effects occurred. In line with other studies, troubles concerning time management are mentioned (Kotsopoulos, Mueller, and Buzza 2012; Mc Quillan, Welch, and Barnatt 2012). Individuals note unfavourable conditions, which impeded their work on the subjectively relevant topic. Future studies may follow up what conditions enable or hinder working on subjectively relevant topics in school placements.

Altogether, the results of the present study reveal that practitioner research can enhance the development of practise. Furthermore, our results suggest that the degree of these effects may be affected by challenges caused by the related research topic. Further research is needed to learn more about particularly challenging practise related tasks. Doing so would enable us to consider these results in the context of teacher education by implementing specific learning settings in order to enhance respective competences.

Lack of awareness or relevance of advancement of research orientation through practitioner research

In contrast to other studies (Levin and Rock 2003; Smith and Sela 2005; Kitchen and Stevens 2008; Mc Quillan, Welch, and Barnatt 2012), student teachers did not report effects concerning research orientation and the reflection on practise when asked about effects of practitioner research in the qualitative phase 1 of the present study. Please note that reflection is one aspect of professional learning that should also be enhanced through research orientation (Altrichter, 2003). To this extent, it can be assumed that student teachers assign less relevance to research orientation and reflection of practise or are less aware of effects in these areas.

Therefore, the minor importance of research related effects could be an indicator that student teachers have not necessarily developed a stance of inquiry. However, the development of this attitude is considered to be an important aim of teacher education. It is associated with an expanded view of practise as the interplay of researching, teaching, learning and leading, with the idea that teachers are producers of local knowledge in global contexts aiming at providing a more just and democratic society and with the intention of facing future challenges (Brew 2006; Cochran–Smith and Lytle 2009; OECD 2017).

Nonetheless, research related effects are highly rated by student teachers in phase 2 of the present study when they were asked to assess respective items. However, the high average rating concerning the factor research reveals student teachers’ advanced competences in applying research procedures and indicates that research competences can be enhanced through practitioner research, just as studies have suggested (Levin and Rock 2003; Smith and Sela 2005; Kitchen and Stevens 2008; Katsarou and Tsafos 2013; Medwell and Wray 2014; Katwijk Van et al. 2019). If these results from phase 2 are related to the above mentioned findings from phase 1, it can be assumed that noticeable effects concerning research occur, but student teachers do not consider them to be relevant or only become aware of them when impacts on research competences are concretely assessed.

Contrary to other studies indicating major problems in relating research based activities to knowledge and skills for teaching practise (Kotsopoulos, Mueller, and Buzza 2012; Mc Quillan, Welch, and Barnatt 2012; Adfal and Spernes 2018), the present results show that student teachers managed to draw conclusions from research findings based on their own teaching. Selecting a subjectively relevant research topic in the concept PPS-PR could have been a possible driver for deriving practise related conclusions. A subjectively meaningful topic is expected to enhance the integration of new knowledge into existing knowledge (Brew 2006). Additionally, individualised mentoring was provided in PPS-PR by internship advisors who delivered practise and research orientated support. Mentoring is not only an essential requirement for successful practitioner research during the research process (Spencer and Molina 2018), it is also important in transferring theory into teaching practise (Kauper 2018), and can contribute to aligning theoretical and practical segments of teacher education (König et al. 2014). Clearly, the awareness of the importance of research orientation should be more strongly promoted in order to foster a stance of inquiry in future teachers. As just asking student teachers directly about research orientated effects seems to foster the awareness and perceived importance of research orientation, it might be useful to integrate more discussions and self-assessments about perceived effects through practitioner research during mentoring by the advisors.

However, further findings are needed to clarify whether the effects reported by student teachers are not limited to self-perception. Future research should go beyond self-report. For example, internship advisors or mentor teachers may assess the proficiency of student teachers. All in all, it can be assumed that the implementation of internship integrated practitioner research can serve as a driving force for linking student teachers’ development of practise and enhancing their research orientation.

5 Limitations

Due to the specific concept PPS-PR and the size of the samples, generalisation of the presented findings should be made with caution. Therefore, conclusions whether the present results concerning the enhancement of professional learning and research orientation of student teachers through practitioner research can be transferred to other institutions and settings of teacher education are up to the specific practitioners and stakeholders (Fielding 2001).

Furthermore, the linkage of practise and research in the course of practitioner research leads to general limitations of findings in this field as it is hard to determine whether effects arise from the practise-setting or from the conducting of research (Fichten 2010). Additionally, it has to be mentioned that as the present study did not follow an experimental and control group design the results cannot be interpreted as causal effects. Furthermore, a pre-post-follow-up design could lead to clearer conclusions regarding between-person and within-person effects of attending practitioner research projects. Hence, the consideration of control groups or assessments before and after the research based learning intervention in future studies could deliver pertinent information. Therefore, further research should aim at more insights into the conditions influencing the effects of internship integrated practitioner research like the internship-setting, accompanying seminars, support and mentoring through internship advisors or mentor teachers in order to deliver impulses for future concepts of sustainable research based learning.

6 Conclusion

In this article, implementing internship-integrated practitioner research during teacher education was put to the test. To do so, the effects on the major goals of research-based learning – professional learning through research orientation (Hofer 2013) – were examined. We see our results as an important base for the further development of research-based learning in the course of teacher education and regard our newly developed questionnaire (phase 2) as an appropriate instrument to assess the effects of internship-integrated practitioner research. While findings of the first, qualitative study phase solely indicate the enhancement of practise related effects, results of the second quantitative study phase reveal a further development of practise and research-related effects. These effects allowed us to derive four overarching factors of effects: researching, structuring of teaching, communication during teaching, and learner centred teaching. The latter three factors concern the development of teaching, which is one aspect of professional learning (Altrichter 2003). To this extent, results of both study phases indicate effects on the development of practise through practitioner research. In contrast, research-related effects are rated rather highly when concrete, closed questions about research competences were asked in phase 2, but were not reported when effects of practitioner research were asked in an open question in phase 1. This may indicate a lower awareness or relevance of advanced research-related competences from the perspective of student teachers and therefore possibly a lack of a stance of inquiry in contrast to a primacy of effects concerning the development of practise. Therefore, from the perspective of student teachers, practitioner research seems to be primarily a tool appropriate to fostering the highly relevant development of practise. This view corresponds with the principles of practitioner research aiming at the development of professionalisation, and the further development of schools and teaching by conducting research and reflecting on the results (Altrichter 2005; Cochran–Smith and Lytle 2009; Fichten and Meyer 2014).

For our institution, the University College for Teacher Education Styria, the findings were crucial to permanently implement learning environments, which engage student teachers in fostering their professional learning through the enhancement of research orientation in the course of practitioner research during pedagogical practical elements of teacher training.

Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest

The first author was involved in the development and implementation of the concept.

Acknowledgments

We thank all members of our research team (Mirijam Axmann, Gerda Kernbichler, Marlies Matischek-Jauk, Clara Obrecht, Manuela Radler, Sabine Reissner) and the internship advisors who brought their great expertise to the project.

Supplemental data

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Katharina Heissenberger-Lehofer

Katharina Heissenberger-Lehofer is University College Professor for Gifted Education in Primary School and Practitioner Research at the University College for Teacher Education Styria in Graz, Austria. Her key research areas are practitioner research, pedagogical-practical studies and gifted education.

Georg Krammer

Georg Krammer is University College Professor for Educational Measurement and Applied Psychometrics at the University College for Teacher Education Styria in Graz, Austria. He identifies as a research methodologist and educational scientist (trained psychologist). He wants to apply stats and methods to further our understanding of substantive (educational) issues.

Notes

1. The survey contained 1 item concerning an anonymous code, 3 items concerning gender, 13 items about research topics, 7 items about motives, 10 items about research methods, 22 items about effects, 7 items about conclusions for future practise and long-term benefits and 9 items regarding feedback about support.

2. The analyses were also done with Promax rotation. Results showed the same allocation of items to factors. We therefore conclude the robustness of our EFA results regarding the method of rotation. Consequently, we choose to report the results of the Varimax rotation, as this is the more parsimonious model.