Exploring secondary education teachers’ research attitude

ABSTRACT

This article reports on the development of a research attitude in secondary education teachers who are conducting teacher research. We aimed to investigate the professional development of teachers who are conducting teacher research, focusing on the development of their research attitude. We operationalised the concept “research attitude”, constructed a questionnaire and handed out questionnaires in which teachers self-reported on their research attitude. The study had a pre-test-post-test design. Questionnaire outcomes were compared with a control group of teachers. Findings show that the research attitude of the teacher-researchers increased during the school year, but the difference with the beginning of the school year was not significant. Compared to the control group, the teacher-researchers had a significantly higher research attitude at the end of the school year.

KEYWORDS:

• Teacher researchers
• professional development
• action research

Introduction

‘Conducting teacher research is inspiring and enriching. It increases your consciousness of your (in)competence and thereby enables you to really change something.’ (male, 38, teacher of Geography)

‘Conducting teacher research changed my view on education and increased my willingness to innovate.’ (female, 35, teacher of Physics)

This article reports on the development of a research attitude in secondary education teachers who are conducting teacher research. Teacher research has been initiated increasingly in secondary schools, with the goal of professional development (here defined as the growth of individual teachers’ research ability) and school development (here defined as the improvement of educational practice and establishing a research culture in the school) (Ponte 2005). This study aims to investigate the professional development of teachers who are conducting teacher research, focusing on the development of their research attitude. The term “teacher-researcher” will be used for teachers who, in addition to performing regular teaching tasks, conduct research into their educational setting in the context of a course in teacher research.

The study was conducted in the Netherlands, where – as in other countries – there is a growing tendency to conduct research in educational practice (Oolbekkink-Marchand, van der Steen, and Nijveldt 2013; Ponte 2005). Teachers have to become “innovators and researchers in education, not just civil servants who deliver curricula” (OECD 2012, 4). In addition to performing teaching activities, teachers should be able to conduct research (Onderwijsraad 2003). To be able to conduct research, teachers should acquire basic research skills such as formulating research questions, collecting and analysing data, and reporting about research findings. Therefore, the Dutch Education Council advises teachers with an affinity for research to engage in research activities (Onderwijsraad 2003). To set up research activities, schools are provided with governmental funding. Several initiatives were established throughout the country among which the course in teacher research (henceforth referred to as the TR-course) which is the context of this study.

The TR-course was developed in a Professional Development School (PDS) project; a partnership of secondary education schools in the Dutch province of Noord-Brabant and Tilburg University. The TR-course aimed at both professional and school development.

Although research attitude is seen as a key concept in teachers’ professional development through teacher research (e.g. Ponte 2005; Tack and Vanderlinde 2014; Wolkenhauer and Hooser 2017), data on its development are scarce. In this study, we set out to gather such data within the context of the before mentioned TR-course.

This article first presents a theoretical framework that will be used as a basis for operationalising the concept “research attitude”. Operationalising the concept was necessary to construct a questionnaire and evaluation forms by which a research attitude could be evaluated. The article then evaluates the development of a research attitude in secondary education teachers by analysing questionnaire data and evaluation forms.

Theoretical framework

Teacher research as a means for professional development

Teachers’ engagement in research is seen as a key component in the professional development of teachers (OECD 2009). It is an effective strategy for teachers to develop as professionals and thereby improve their educational practice (Schwartz and Ray 2018; van der Linden 2012; Vrijnsen-de Corte 2012). By conducting teacher research, teachers generate knowledge about their educational practice (Ponte 2002; Ponte et al. 2004; Vanderlinde and van Braak 2010). It provides them with evidence on what works in their educational practice (Pater and van Driel 2014; Schenke 2015) and with a better understanding of this practice (Ponte 2005). Based on this enriched understanding, teachers are better able to improve their practice (Lunenberg, Ponte, and van de Ven 2007).

Research by Zeichner (2003) pointed out that teachers who conduct research are more responsive to (difficult) situations that emerge in their teaching. Also, when conducting teacher research, teachers are encouraged to constantly reflect on their educational practice (Kayaoglu 2015; Zeichner 2003) and develop a critical, reflective stance (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1999b; Hall 2009; van der Linden 2012; Vrijnsen-de Corte 2012). These are all aspects of what is referred to as “research attitude”.

Research attitude

“Research attitude” is closely related to constructs like “inquiry as stance” (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 2009), “inquiry-based attitude” (Meijer et al. 2016), “inquiry habit of mind” (Earl and Katz 2002), “researcherly disposition” (Tack and Vanderlinde 2014), “scientific attitude” (de Vos and Genseberger 2000) and “scientific research disposition” (van der Rijst et al. 2008). The construct is described as “the position teachers […] take towards knowledge and its relationship to practice” (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1999a, 288) and “the tendency to engage in research” (Tack and Vanderlinde 2014, 297). All terms and definitions slightly differ, but they all at the core refer to a “disposition”. A disposition is a “tendency to act” (van der Rijst et al. 2008, 2). van der Rijst et al. (2008) state that “although dispositions are difficult to change, individuals can put more emphasis on certain aspects of a disposition above others” (p. 2).

How one develops a research attitude and learns to take an inquiry stance on practice is not clear (Lawton-Sticklor and Bodamer 2016). However, in several studies it has been suggested that a research attitude can be developed by engagement in research (Bakx et al. 2009; Donche and Struyf 2008). While doing research, factors leading to an increased research attitude can be expected. For example, Lawton-Sticklor and Bodamer (2016) identified markers for developing an inquiry stance, such as increased risk-taking and deepening self-reflection.

In this study, we set out to investigate the development of a research attitude of teachers in secondary education. As stated in the literature, measuring how research attitude develops is not an easy task, as the elements of a research attitude are not clear nor quantifiable and development cannot be expected to be linear (Lawton-Sticklor and Bodamer 2016).We started our exploration of research attitude from de Vos and Genseberger (2000) who argued for a greater focus on the development of a “scientific attitude” in secondary education students. They stressed the importance of such attitude from three different perspectives: students, science and society. de Vos and Genseberger (2000) emphasised that education should encourage students’ desire to know. Students should jointly perform their research activities, as conducting research is not an individual matter. In addition, students should develop a critical stance as they are confronted with research (results) in society. On this basis, de Vos and Genseberger (2000) indicated three aspects of a scientific attitude: an inclination to know, to share and to be critical.

Earl and Katz (2002) described several characteristics of school leaders with a so-called “inquiry habit of mind”. According to them, school leaders have an inquiry habit of mind when they strive for a thorough understanding, meaning that they persevere and continue investigating until they know for sure. School leaders with an inquiry habit of mind work evidence-based and constantly process data systematically. In addition, they withhold their judgement, are not put off by uncertainty and are willing to change perspective. In line with Earl and Katz (2002), Kreijns et al. (2019) distinguished similar dimensions of an inquiry habit of mind: value deep understanding, reserve judgement and tolerate ambiguity, take a range of perspectives and pose increasingly focused questions.

van der Rijst et al. (2008) found six aspects of what they called a “scientific research disposition”. This disposition consists of the three aspects distinguished by de Vos and Genseberger (2000), supplemented with an inclination to understand, to achieve and to be innovative. In their study, they interviewed 23 professors from Leiden University’s departments of Mathematics and Natural sciences to identify aspects of this scientific research disposition. All academics had teaching and research experience. Interview questions were related to both the teaching context and the research context. Results showed that the professors varied with respect to their notion of which aspect was central to a scientific research disposition, but the most identified aspects were the inclination to understand and the inclination to be critical (van der Rijst et al. 2008).

The studies by de Vos and Genseberger (2000), Earl and Katz (2002), van der Rijst et al. (2008) focus on educational practice, but not specifically on secondary education teachers. We could further clarify the meaning of “research attitude” related to teachers in secondary education with work of Bruggink and Harinck (2012). They stressed the importance of a research attitude in secondary education teachers and therefore wanted to investigate what the research attitude of these teachers entails. In their literature review they identified aspects of a research attitude in ten national (Dutch) and twelve international key publications (which were selected from an initial query). Bruggink and Harinck (2012) found nine generic characteristics which overlap with the aspects as distinguished by de Vos and Genseberger (2000), Earl and Katz (2002), and van der Rijst et al. (2008). One aspect (the inclination to achieve) is reported by van der Rijst et al. (2008) and Earl and Katz (2002), but is not mentioned as such in the nine characteristics of Bruggink and Harinck (2012). They do however put emphasis on the importance of perseverance in the research attitude, which shows correspondence with the inclination to achieve. Therefore, we decided to use a model of research attitude containing the ten aspects, derived from the literature, as listed below in Table 1.

Table 1. Overview of elements of a research attitude and sources

Inclination to	de Vos and Genseberger 2000	Earl and Katz 2002	van der Rijst et al. 2008	Bruggink and Harinck 2012
be critical	*		*	*
know	*		*	*
share	*		*	*
be innovative			*	*
understand			*	*
achieve		*	*
know for sure		*		*
work evidence-based		*		*
be open-minded		*		*
change perspective		*		*

The inclination to be critical entails reflecting critically on the content and quality of data and questioning information. The aspect inclination to know entails wondering and wanting to know and investigate. It denotes a profound interest into a theme and the existence of an initial curiosity which might lead to an inquiry. Willingness to share entails the desire to talk and write about one’s research findings in order to make others familiar with them. The inclination to be innovative comprises distancing oneself from routines, questioning the obvious and daring to choose one’s own direction. The inclination to understand indicates a desire to gain insight, for understanding on a fundamental level. The inclination to achieve comprises the dedication and tenacity to do research. The desire to use high quality data, to be precise and to work responsibly (e.g. gathering data in a scientifically correct way) is reflected in the aspect inclination to know for sure. The inclination to work evidence-based means that one uses data sources and elaborates on former research to construct new knowledge. An open-minded attitude comprises awareness of one’s own perspective and assumptions. It also entails the ability to reserve one’s judgement and be receptive for feedback. The aspect of being willing to change perspective entails the examination of views and positions from various perspectives.

The ten aspects give guidance in our attempt to operationalise the concept “research attitude”. However, we do note that several aspects show overlap. For example, the focus on resources is reflected in both the inclination to know for sure and the inclination to work evidence-based. Another example is that the receptivity to multiple perspectives is reflected in the aspects open mindedness and willingness to change perspective. We also raise a question regarding the applicability in educational practice. A direct reference to this practice is missing even though all aspects have been mentioned for/by educational practitioners. For example, students – being key stakeholders in education – are not reflected in the aspects. In the present study, we want to shed light on the research attitude of teachers who conduct research in their regular teaching practice. Because of the above mentioned shortcomings of current conceptualisations of research attitude, we included an in-depth analysis of the concept in our research.

Methodology

Research objectives and questions

The aim of the study was to investigate the development of a research attitude in secondary education teachers who are conducting teacher research. We wanted to assess whether, as has been suggested in several studies, engagement in research has a positive effect on the development of a research attitude. To investigate the development of a research attitude in secondary education teachers, the concept of “research attitude” was operationalised in order to construct an instrument by which a research attitude in secondary education teachers could be evaluated.

The following two research questions were formulated:

• How does the research attitude of teacher-researchers differ before and after having conducted teacher research?

• How does the research attitude of teacher-researchers after having conducted teacher research differ from the research attitude of teachers who did not conduct research?

The TR-course

The TR-course was developed by two PDS in which secondary education schools and Tilburg University are partners. The TR-course runs over a period of one school year (September – July). When conducting this study (2015–2016), the TR-course ran for the fourth year.

The TR-course was facilitated by the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Sciences. This included time (teachers were made free from teaching for one afternoon per week), provision of a meeting location and assistance from two supervisors of Tilburg University. They provided training in research skills and were involved in supervising and coaching the teachers in the process of conducting research. A website (www.docentonderzoekbrabant.nl) was created and used as a platform for exchanging information. The TR-course was evaluated by the PDS every year and revised if needed.

Teacher-researchers in the TR-course conducted research on a variety of themes. Examples are: effects of implementing creative writing in Dutch lessons, developing and designing sciences lessons, application of reading strategies in beta lessons, focusing on answering strategies in Geography lessons. All participating teachers took part on a voluntary basis. A certificate was handed out to the teacher-researchers who completed their research project successfully (meaning that their research report was graded as sufficient by the TR-course supervisors).

The two groups of teacher-researchers each met thirteen times a year including at a seminar in which research findings were presented. In addition to these group meetings (of two hours each), teacher-researchers could schedule individual meetings (of half an hour) in which they had the opportunity to discuss their research with one of the supervisors. The number of individual meetings differed; some teachers only scheduled one meeting, while others scheduled up to nine meetings. Both group and individual meetings took place at a secondary school.

During group meetings, teacher-researchers discussed the research process and content, and gave and received feedback to and from peers (fellow teacher-researchers) and supervisors. In addition, the supervisors provided research skills training. No explicit attention was paid to the concept research attitude. A handbook on teacher research (van der Donk and van Lanen 2012) was used during the training. Topics covered in the group meetings included: formulating research questions, designing questionnaires and analysing data. Teachers ran the whole process from diagnosing the problem to reporting on their findings (write and submit a research report and present findings).

Participants

The participants in this study were teacher-researchers on the one hand as an experimental group and teachers who did not participate in the TR-course on the other hand as a control group. A total of 36 teacher-researchers were involved in the TR-course in 2015–2016 (the year in which this study was conducted). Seven of them had already started in 2014–2015 and participated for a second time by continuing their research or starting up a new one. All 36 teacher-researchers taught at secondary schools throughout the Dutch province of Noord-Brabant. There was a group of teachers in the central region of Noord-Brabant in which 16 teachers from five schools participated (group A) and a group in the western region of Noord-Brabant in which 20 teachers from four schools participated (group B). All the teacher-researchers participated in the study at the beginning of the school year. During the year, the group’s composition changed due to participants dropping out and a delayed start (due to miscommunication about the start date of the TR-course). Four teachers joined group B in October. One teacher from group A and three teachers from group B left the TR-course during the school year. Reasons for this drop out were an increased workload at school or personal circumstances. A total of 36 teacher-researchers completed the questionnaire at the end of the school year. We have questionnaire data on both the beginning and the end of the school year of 29 teacher-researchers (of which six teacher-researchers who participated in the TR-course for the second year). These data will be used for further analyses.

A total of 97 teachers who did not conduct teacher research, participated in the study as a control group. All these teachers taught at secondary schools throughout the Dutch province of Noord-Brabant. Data on research attitude were collected of 97 teachers, but we could collect background information of 47 teachers only (as a result of a construction error in the online survey software). The missing data are probably in line with the collected data as these correspond to the population of secondary education teachers in the Netherlands with 46.3% male teachers and 53.7% female teachers with an average age of 44.3 years in 2015 (www.stamos.nl). In Table 2 an overview is presented of the participants in the study.

Table 2. Background information of the participants

		Teacher-researchers (n = 29)	Control group (n = 47)
Age (mean)		38.6	45.7
Gender	Male	51.7%	46.9%
	Female	48.3%	53.1%
Subject taught^1	Alpha	48.3%	36.2%
	Beta	10.3%	31.9%
	Gamma	34.5%	25.5%
	Other	6.9%	6.4%

¹Alpha: languages (e.g. Dutch, English), beta: natural science (e.g. Mathematics, Biology), gamma: social sciences (e.g. Economy, History), other: Physical education, Dramatic arts and Health and Nursing care

Prior to the start of the TR-course no statistically significant difference in the score for research attitude was found between the teacher-researchers and the control group for gender, subject taught or age. We concluded that both groups come from the same population. Furthermore, no difference in the score for research attitude existed within the groups for gender, subject taught or age. Moreover, we have no reason to believe that the teacher-researchers who participated in the TR-course for the second year are different from the other teacher-researchers, since we found no statistical difference in scores for research attitude between these participants and the teacher-researchers who participated in the TR-course for the first year.

Instruments

Since no questionnaire for evaluating teachers’ research attitude based on the ten aspects as described above was available, a new questionnaire was developed. This questionnaire was based on the descriptions of the ten aspects in the literature (see de Vos and Genseberger 2000; Earl and Katz 2002; van der Rijst et al. 2008; Bruggink and Harinck 2012). Additionally, the questionnaire for measuring teacher competences (Huizinga 2009), the curiosity questionnaire as created by Litman and Spielberger (2003) and the innovativeness questionnaire as constructed by Goldsmith (1991) served as inspiration in the construction of the questionnaire for evaluating teachers’ research attitude.

The questionnaire consisted of 50 items, each presenting a statement dealing with an aspect of a research attitude (five items on each aspect). Example of statements are I critically review my educational practice and I wonder why things happen as they do. A five-point Likert scale was used (1 = “totally disagree”; 5 = “totally agree”) on which the items were rated. The Dutch questionnaire is presented in Appendix 1.

Two versions of the questionnaire were administered because some items were not applicable to teachers who do not conduct research. Seven items with a direct reference to research activities had to be formulated in more general terms. For example, I do not talk much with others about my research became I do not talk much with others about my teaching practice. On both questionnaires, eleven item reversals were made in order to reduce response bias (particularly the effect of acquiescence). For example, I persevere when things go wrong became I tend to give up when things go wrong.

All 50 items were evaluated by both TR-course supervisors independently. In case of different interpretations, the item was adapted. The questionnaires were piloted with the 2014–2015 cohort of the TR-course and demonstrated adequate face validity meaning that these teachers did not encounter any difficulties in answering the questionnaire. Therefore, after piloting, no items from the questionnaire were reformulated.

In addition to the questionnaire, an evaluation form was constructed (see Appendix 2). Teacher-researchers were asked to reflect on the impact of their research on their professional development. By including comments from the evaluation forms in our study, we aimed at eliciting more spontaneous and grounded responses and to correct for a possible tendency to answer in a socially desirable manner. For the purpose of data triangulation, different instruments were used. Greene (2007) argued that if the results correspond, the confidence in those results is increased. Hence, for this study, quotations from the evaluation forms in which teacher-researchers commented on their research attitude were included.

Instrument analysis

An instrument analysis for the questionnaire was conducted on 142 responses (from 29 teacher-researchers, 97 teachers in the control group and 16 teachers in the pilot group). Overall, the instrument to measure a research attitude (with 50 items) had a high reliability, Cronbach’s α = .85. However, at the level of the ten aspects (with five items on each aspect), we found relatively low reliability scores (Cronbach’s α between .13 and .59). Therefore, a factor analysis was conducted in order to find out whether there were other underlying variables (factors) present in the instrument to measure a research attitude.

A principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted on the 50 items with orthogonal rotation (varimax). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis, KMO = .73 and all but one KMO value for individual items were above the acceptable limit of 0.5 (Field 2013). This item was excluded from further analysis. With 49 items the KMO measure verified the sampling adequacy and all individual items above the acceptable limit. Bartlett’s test of sphericity (χ2 (1176) = 3070.81, p < .00), indicated that correlations between the items were sufficiently large for PCA.

Fifteen components had eigenvalues above Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and in combination explained 67.07% of the variance. However, the scree plot was slightly ambiguous. To determine the optimum number of components, Stevens (in Field 2013) recommends interpreting only factor loadings with an absolute value greater than 0.4, irrespective of the sample size. The PCA showed nine components with three or more variables with loadings higher than 0.4 (see Appendix 3).This number of components is close to the a priori criteria for determining the number of components as the instrument contained ten aspects. Therefore, we repeated the analysis with nine factors to extract. The items that cluster on these components suggest that the components represent the aspects as described in Table 3. In formulating the aspect labels, we tried to make an association with the teachers’ educational practice to enhance their practical applicability in education. The reliability of all the aspects was reasonable, considering the fact that when dealing with psychological constructs (such as attitudes) values below .70 can be expected (Field 2013).

Table 3. Aspects of a “research attitude”

	Aspect	Items	Cronbach’s α
1	Inclination to reorient	12	.78
2	Willingness to apply new ideas in an educational practice	9	.73
3	Scientific working method	7	.66
4	Ongoing observation	4	.65
5	Ongoing verification	4	.57
6	Orientation towards new ideas	4	.56
7	Focus on an educational practice	3	.52
8	Aimed at students	2	.60
9	Willingness to propagate findings	4	.55

The aspect inclination to reorient entails determining whether a current situation still meets actual needs. The teacher wonders about the way things go. The teacher uses input (opinions and perspectives of others) and is being critical. The aspect willingness to apply new ideas in an educational practice entails a focus on application in educational practice. The teacher has an inclination to take a closer look at his/her educational practice and to innovate, apply new ideas. A scientific working method means that a teacher works systematically and thoroughly. The teacher wants to know for sure and uses multiple sources to conduct a proper inquiry. The aspect ongoing observation entails the discipline and perseverance of the teacher to keep reflecting and observing. The teacher is continuously registering and noticing things. The ongoing verification aspect entails the discipline and perseverance of the teacher to keep verifying. The teacher is not satisfied with shallow and simplistic information or conclusions, but feels the need to verify. The aspect orientation towards new ideas entails an openness and willingness to consider new ideas and different opinions. The aspect focus on an educational practice entails the contextual focus of the teachers on their educational practice. The teacher reads professional journals and is aware of recent developments in an educational practice. Aimed at students means that the teacher pays attention to the students and is keen on optimising the students’ learning situation. The aspect willingness to propagate entails that the teacher has an inclination to contribute to the knowledge base of teaching and has a willingness to publicise (research) findings.

The majority of the items (43%) loaded on the first two aspects (the inclination to reorient and the willingness to apply new ideas in an educational practice) which had Cronbach’s α values greater than .70 (see Table 2). It seems to be that those two aspects form the central notion of a research attitude. The fact that many items load on one aspect was to be expected as the aspects taken from the literature showed overlap. This overlap also becomes apparent when comparing the two lists of aspects of a research attitude. The inclination to reorient was reflected in the aspects inclination to be innovative and inclination to be critical. A scientific working method appeared in the inclination to work evidence-based. The aspects ongoing observation and ongoing verification were reflected in the inclination to know, to understand, to know for sure, and to achieve. The orientations towards new ideas was reflected in the aspects open mindedness and willingness to change perspective. The willingness to propagate appeared in the aspect the willingness to share. The aspects that were not reflected as such in the literature are the willingness to apply new ideas in an educational practice, a focus on an educational practice and being aimed at students. Hence, the aspects that were added are mainly the focus on educational practice and application/implementation in educational practice aimed at students’ benefit.

Data collection

All teacher-researchers were asked to complete the questionnaire during a group meeting. Participants did not receive any instruction other than to react to all 50 statements on the questionnaire provided. All teacher-researchers filled out a paper version of the questionnaire in September 2015 (pre-test) and an identical online version in August 2016 (post-test).

The evaluation form was handed out to the teacher-researchers during the last group meeting; 22 teacher-researchers completed the evaluation form.

The coordinators of both PDS distributed the questionnaire among teachers who did not participate in the TR-course. The 97 teachers who responded, completed the online questionnaire in January 2016.

Data analysis

The data analysis for this study was conducted using SPSS 24.0. The assumption of normality of the data was explored by testing for skewness and kurtosis. Plots in combination with values indicated a normal distribution of the data. The Levene’s test indicated that variances on all aspects of a research attitude were equal.

Descriptive statistics (means and standard error) were calculated in order to determine the overall score and scores on the newly constructed aspects of a research attitude. By using a dependent (paired samples) t-test, it was determined whether a research attitude of teacher-researchers differed before and after conducting teacher research. By using an independent t-test, it was determined whether after conducting teacher research a research attitude of teacher-researchers differed from a research attitude of teachers who did not conduct research. Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated in order to determine the effect size to not only report the statistical significance of the research results, but also the relevance of the difference (see Field 2013).

Quotations from the evaluation forms in which teacher-researchers self-reported on their research attitude were analysed for a more in-depth investigation of teacher-researchers’ research attitude. I categorised the quotations to the ten aspects of a research attitude. In addition, a random selection of quotations was categorised independently by my colleague TR-course supervisor. In case of differences in categorisation, the categorisation was discussed until consensus was reached. The quotations used in this study were translated from Dutch to English adhering to the content of the original quote, but formulating a grammatically correct English sentence.

Findings

In Figure 1, the scores for research attitude are presented for teacher-researchers at the beginning (pre-test) and end (post-test) of the school year, and for teachers who did not conduct teacher research (control group).

Figure 1. The scores for research attitude of teacher-researchers (pre-test and post-test, n = 29) and teachers (the control group, n = 97)

The average score of a research attitude of teacher-researchers at the beginning of the school year is M = 3.88 (SE = .04). At the end of the school year the average score is M = 3.90 (SE = .06). 16 teacher-researchers had a somewhat more well-developed research attitude whereas 13 teacher-researchers had a somewhat less well-developed research attitude. The average score of teachers who did not conduct research is M = 3.78 (SE = .27). A more detailed description of the scores of a research attitude is given below in which answers to the two research questions are presented.

How does a research attitude of teacher-researchers differ before and after conducting teacher research?

In Figure 2 the scores on the nine aspects of a research attitude before (pre-test) and after (post-test) conducting teacher-research are presented.

Figure 2. Scores of teacher-researchers on aspects of a research attitude before and after conducting teacher research (n = 29) (1 = inclination to reorient, 2 = willingness to apply new ideas, 3 = work scientifically, 4 = ongoing observation, 5 = ongoing verification, 6 = orientation towards new ideas, 7 = focus on own teaching practice, 8 = aimed at students, 9 = willingness to propagate)

Findings show that on six out of nine aspects of a research attitude, teacher-researchers’ mean scores were higher at the end of the school year. The differences in scores were however not statistically significant. At the end of the school year, teacher-researchers had a somewhat stronger inclination to reorient, to work scientifically and to ongoing verification. Furthermore, they were somewhat more orientated towards new ideas, more focused on their teaching practice and more aimed at students.

Statements from the evaluation forms exemplified that teacher-researchers’ research attitude increased. In total, 14 out of the 22 teacher-researchers (63.6%) spontaneously referred to their research attitude. For example, a teacher-researcher (male, age 38, teacher of Geography) stated that teacher research “increases your consciousness of your (in)competence and thereby enables you to really change something”. Another teacher researcher (male, age 33, teacher of Biology) reported: “Conducting research has contributed to my research attitude. And my wish to increase this attitude even more”. According to another teacher-researcher (female, age 28, teacher of Dutch), “conducting teacher research has provided me with a more professional and critical stance”.

In the evaluation forms, multiple comments reflecting an increase in either of the six aspects (as described above) were found. In the following, several exemplary quotes are presented. An increase in the inclination to reorient is reflected in the comment of a teacher-researcher (female, age 27, teacher of Dutch) who states that “Conducting research made me and my colleagues critically review our teaching practice”. Comments showed an increased way of working scientifically, for example “By conducting research, I now work more systematically and am better able to substantiate my ideas” (male, age 63, teacher of Physical education). Comments were found to indicate an inclination for ongoing verification: “I have become more curious. I have the intention to conduct a follow-up study among other classes to test whether my own conclusions are correct” (male, age 28, teacher of English).

Comments also showed a stronger orientation towards new ideas: “Conducting research changed my way of looking at educational practice. I am now more open to new ideas” (female, age 55, teacher of Health and Nursing care). And: “Conducting teacher research changed my view on education and increased my willingness to innovate” (female, age 35, teacher of Physics). Comments were found to indicate a stronger focus on the teaching practice and a stronger focus on the students: “I am more explicitly concerned with the ‘why’ of what I do in my lessons. I have found a better balance between my own personal development and the development of the students” (male, age 40, teacher of Arts).

Questionnaire data showed that on three aspects of the research attitude teacher-researchers’ mean scores went down (although not statistically significant) during the school year. Teacher-researchers had a smaller willingness to apply new ideas and to propagate, and had a smaller inclination for ongoing observation at the end of the school year. From the evaluation forms, no comments were found to indicate a decrease in these aspects of the research attitude.

How does a research attitude of teacher-researchers after conducting teacher research differ from a research attitude of teachers who did not conduct research?

In Figure 3 the scores on the nine aspects of a research attitude after conducting teacher research (post-test) and the scores of the control group are presented.

Figure 3. Scores of teacher-researchers on aspects of a research attitude after conducting teacher research (n = 29) compared to scores of the control group (n = 97) (1 = inclination to reorient, 2 = willingness to apply new ideas, 3 = work scientifically, 4 = ongoing observation, 5 = ongoing verification, 6 = orientation towards new ideas, 7 = focus on own teaching practice, 8 = aimed at students, 9 = willingness to propagate)

Findings show that on four out of nine aspects of a research attitude teacher-researchers’ scores were higher than the scores of teachers who did not conduct research. A statistically significant difference between the two groups was found in three of those aspects. At the end of the school year, teacher-researchers had a stronger inclination to reorient (M = 4.06, SE = .08) than teachers in the control group (M = 3.74, SE = .04). This difference was significant (t(124) = 3.71, p < .00) and did represent a medium-sized effect (r = .34). Teacher-researchers had a greater willingness to apply new ideas (M = 4.01, SE = .09) than teachers in the control group (M = 3.45, SE = .04). This difference was significant (t(124) = 6.55, p < .00) and did represent a large-sized effect (r = .51). They also had greater inclination for ongoing observation (M = 4.18, SE = .11) than teachers in the control group (M = 3.93, SE = .05). This difference was significant (t(124) = 2.37, p < .05) and did represent a small-sized effect (r = .21). Teacher-researchers had a greater inclination for ongoing verification, but this difference in scores with the control group was not statistically significant and no more than a small effect was found.

Teacher-researchers’ scores were lower than the control group teachers’ scores on five aspects of a research attitude. A statistically significant difference between the two groups was found in three of those aspects. On average, teacher-researchers had a smaller inclination to work scientifically (M = 3.65, SE = .09) than teachers in the control group (M = 3.86, SE = .04). This difference was significant (t(124) = −2.44, p < .05) and did represent a small-sized effect (r = .21). Teacher-researchers had a smaller orientation towards new ideas (M = 3.82, SE = .10) than teachers in the control group (M = 4.17, SE = .04). This difference was significant (t(124) = −3.41, p < .00) and did represent a small-sized effect (r = .29). They also were less aimed at students (M = 3.81, SE = .12) than teachers in the control group (M = 4.20, SE = .04). This difference was significant (t(124) = −3.72 p < .00) and did represent a medium-sized effect (r = .32). Teacher-researchers’ scores were also lower on the focus on their teaching practice and on their willingness to propagate, but these scores did not prove statistically different between the two groups and no more than a small-sized effect was found.

Conclusions

This study was an attempt to gain more insight into the development of a research attitude in secondary education teachers who are conducting teacher research. In this section, we will answer the two research questions on the development of a research attitude in secondary education teachers.

How does a research attitude of teacher-researchers differ before and after conducting teacher research?

The results of the pre- and post-test cannot support the claim that teacher-researchers develop a stronger research attitude when conducting teacher research during a school year. Their research attitude is only slightly stronger at the end of the school year. The mean scores have increased slightly on six out of nine aspects of a research attitude and have gone down slightly on three aspects. Therefore, in this study, we cannot affirm the claim that teacher research has an impact on a research attitude of teachers. It indeed seems to be the case that attitudes or dispositions are difficult to change (van der Rijst et al. 2008) and development of an inquiry stance of mind may not be linear (Lawton-Sticklor and Bodamer 2016. The one-year TR-course that the teacher-researchers were engaged in did not have sufficient impact to substantively heighten the research attitude of the participants. However, statements from the teacher-researchers in the evaluation indicated that they themselves did experience an increase in research attitude. Teacher-researchers claimed that as a result of conducting teacher research, they (e.g.) were more open to new ideas, worked in a more scientific way, and were more inclined to reorient on their teaching practice.

How does a research attitude of teacher-researchers after conducting teacher research differ from a research attitude of teachers who did not conduct research?

In our study, we found a difference between teachers who were and teachers who were not engaged in teacher research. After having conducted research during a school year, teacher-researchers had a stronger research attitude than teachers who did not conduct research. We found that teacher-researchers were more willing to apply new ideas in their teaching practice, had a stronger orientation to reorient and a stronger inclination for ongoing observation than teachers who did not conduct teacher research. As the findings of this study show that the aspects “inclination to reorient” and “willingness to apply new ideas” are the central notions of a research attitude, it seems that teacher-researchers indeed have a stronger research attitude than teachers who did not conduct teacher research. Teacher-researchers scored lower on three aspects: their focus on students, their orientation towards new ideas and their inclination to work scientifically.

Discussion

The results of this first study add to the existing literature about teachers’ research attitude by analysing the concept and providing empirical data. Insight into the aspects that encompass teachers’ research attitude is essential in understanding and measuring this attitude. Analysis of the research attitude instrument on the basis of empirical data led us to come up with a new model encompassing nine aspects. This model seems to be more adapted to the context of teachers performing teacher research, in which they do inquiries for the sake of improving educational practice. Noticeably, the willingness of teachers to constantly ask themselves whether their teaching practice still meets actual needs (reorient) and their willingness to apply new ideas in their practice, are the core aspects of a teacher’s “research attitude”.

Most of the teachers who participated in the TR-course indicated as outcomes positive changes in their research attitude. In the questionnaire however, no significant impact of the TR-course on the development of a research attitude could be found. A possible explanation could be that a one-year TR-course might not provide enough time for impact (i.e. change in research attitude) to appear. Our findings support a study by Zwart et al. (2008) proposing that one year might not be enough to make a mind switch. Our findings also support a study by van der Rijst et al. (2008) who argued that dispositions (e.g. research attitude) are difficult to change. It indeed seems that teachers’ research attitude is quite stable and does not change easily. As indicated earlier, in several studies (e.g. Bakx et al. 2009) it has been suggested that a research attitude can be developed by engagement in research, but that it is still unclear how this happens exactly.

When looking at our findings, we should note that there was not much room for improvement. Teacher-researchers seem to already possess a rather well developed research attitude at the beginning of the school year; their average score was 3.88 (on a five-point scale). These high scores could be an effect of participants displaying a tendency to answer in a socially desirable manner. Such bias can occur in this form of data collection (Desimone 2009). We tried to reduce a possible social desirability bias by piloting the questionnaire and assuring participants that there were no right answers and that the data would be processed confidentially. If we assume these high scores at the beginning of the school year to reflect reality, we might hypothesise that the TR-course is especially attractive to teachers who already have a strong research attitude. However, the results of this study show that teachers who do not conduct research also already have a strong research attitude (see also van den Bergh et al. 2017), albeit less than the teacher-researchers. This leads us to insert that nowadays having a research attitude can be considered as a core teacher quality. Items of a research attitude questionnaire indeed show a resemblance with standards for teacher educators (see Garrett Holbert and Fisher 2017) and the Dutch standards of teaching competence (standards for being employed in secondary education; Besluit bekwaamheidseisen onderwijspersoneel 2005, August 23th). According to these standards, a teacher has to be able to (e.g.): identify actual developments in an educational practice (reminiscent of the inclination to reorient) and make use of new technologies (reminiscent of willingness to apply new ideas). In a recently established professional profile of teachers, designing education and making use of research are explicitly mentioned as belonging to the task of teachers (Snoek et al. 2017). We may conclude that the aspects of a research attitude are represented in the standards and profile for Dutch teachers. So, if teachers are trained to meet these standards, taking on a research attitude is a necessary component. Our research findings indeed showed that the participants had a well-developed research attitude.

Although all participants have a well-developed research attitude, scores on the aspects of a research attitude significantly differed between teacher-researchers and teachers who are not engaged in research. We argue that participation in the TR-course may explain teacher-researchers’ stronger inclination to reorient, their higher willingness to apply new ideas in their teaching practice and their stronger inclination for ongoing observation. In the TR-course, explicit attention was paid to the curiosity and critical attitude of teacher-researchers. Throughout the school year during group meetings, teacher-researchers were continuously encouraged to ask questions in their daily practice, to wonder what was going on and what could be improved. Moreover, they were encouraged to discuss their problems in daily practice and their ideas for improvement with the other participants and to critically review each other’s work. As expected, these activities may have resulted in the established increase of teacher-researchers’ “inclination to reorient”, “willingness to apply new ideas” and “ongoing observation”. These findings are supported by a study by Heyma et al. (2016) who found that teachers who obtained their master’s degree (having an emphasis on conducting research) had a more critical stance than teachers without a master’s degree. Additionally, we want to argue that for the aspect “ongoing observation” – in which perseverance is important – participation in the TR-course testifies for endurance among teacher-researchers. As indicated above, conducting research is complementary to the teaching tasks of the teacher-researcher. Perseverance is assumed to be vital for teacher-researchers’ completion of the research project.

Remarkably, there were aspects on which teacher-researchers scored lower than teachers who did not perform research. We hypothesise that the lower score of teacher-researchers on the aspect “work scientifically” (7 items) may be a result of teacher-researchers becoming aware that they do not fully master the required skills to conduct research. Teachers who did not attend the TR-course, have probably not been confronted with lacking competence to work scientifically, resulting in higher scores on the aspect “working scientifically”. It is difficult to explain the finding of teacher-researchers being less keen on optimising students’ learning situations and having a smaller orientation towards new ideas and opinions. As these aspects are consisting of only a few items (2 and 4 respectively), we think these findings should be treated with caution. An assumption could be made that these findings originate from teacher-researchers’ disappointment in the practical application of their findings. Oolbekkink-Marchand, van der Steen, and Nijveldt (2013) found that teacher research primarily led to transformations in knowledge and attitudes, more than in actions. As changes in knowledge and attitudes may feel less visible and innovative than concrete changes in actions, teacher-researchers may lower their expectations of being able to use new ideas to optimise the learning situation for students.

It was beyond the scope of this study to examine to what extent teacher-researchers integrate their research findings into their teaching practice in order to improve this practice. However, it would be valuable to investigate what impact conducting teacher research has on teaching practices. In this study, it proved valuable to use different forms of data collection, a questionnaire and an evaluation form, as they enabled us to combine quantitative and qualitative data. Comments of the teacher-researchers from the evaluation forms, proved useful for a more in-depth investigation of their research attitude.

Overall, this study has provided a renewed insight into the concept of “research attitude” by analysing the concept and providing empirical data. While being aware of the difficulty of measuring the development of a research attitude (Lawton-Sticklor and Bodamer 2016), we made an effort of exploring its development in teachers doing research in their own practice. This study showed that we should nuance the claim that teacher research has an impact on the development of a research attitude. In the context of a short one-year TR-course, support for this claim was not found. We did however find teachers who were involved in teacher research to be more inclined to reorient, to apply ongoing observation and to apply new ideas in their teaching practice than teachers who were not involved in teacher research. What merits further investigation is the question whether doing research leads to these attitudes or having these attitudes leads to one’s choice for being involved in teacher research.

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science under Grant [5150.0165] and Grant [5150.0166]. This work was supported by Ons Middelbaar Onderwijs (OMO)

Notes on contributors

K.R. Kitty Leuverink

K.R. Kitty Leuverink is a PhD-student at Tilburg University. She works at the Teacher Education Department. Her research focusses on a professional development program in which secondary education teachers conduct research into their own educational practice.

A.M.L. Rian Aarts

A.M.L. Rian Aarts is an assistant professor at Tilburg University. She is working in the field of language acquisition and bilingualism, focusing on the early development of bilingualism, bilingual education and the acquisition of Turkish and Dutch by young Turkish children in the Netherlands. Her educational research focusses on practitioners research, professional learning communities and the support for beginning teachers.