Çağla Atmaca


Growing body of studies has stressed the role of research in teacher education since conducting research informs both teachers and students, and contributes to professional skills. Therefore, this study aimed to find out and compare the perspectives of pre-service and in-service English teachers in an EFL context with regard to finding sufficient resources to conduct research, whether they are involved in research-related activities and find research findings applicable. Qualitative research method was used to get detailed responses from the participants and form a theory upon emerging themes and categories. The qualitative findings were further supported with numbers in the form of frequency and percentage tables to include both qualitative and quantitative means, utilize complementary purposes of words and numbers, and get the outmost profit from numerical and non-numerical data. There were 340 participants and it took more than about one year to collect the data. 290 pre-service English teachers from four different state universities and 50 in-service English teachers from 15 different cities participated in the study. The participants reflected their perspectives upon the importance of research in teacher education by answering questions in a written interview protocol (WIP). Statistical procedures were applied to form the frequency and percentage tables whereas constant comparison of grounded theory was used to code and categorize interview items, and form a theory summarizing the macro-level and micro-level factors affecting participant responses. The findings showed that there exist similarities and differences between pre-service and in-service English teachers. More than half of the pre-service participants (N: 147) and high majority of the in-service participants (N: 43) reflected unfavorable perspectives upon finding sufficient opportunities, following publications and feasibility of research findings. Additionally, the emerging categories of pre-service answers are more varied compared to in-service teachers. In general, the in-service participants were found to be more pessimistic about educational research more than the pre-service participants. At the end of the analysis P.I.S. Theory emerged to cover the determinants of research in teacher education. According to P.I.S. Theory, there exist three macro-level determinants namely Personal, Institutional and Stakeholder-related issues which shape the route of research in teacher education and include micro-level determinants. The findings point out the gap between university classrooms and school classrooms in terms of promoting research among teachers. Participant quotations also draw attention on their changing flow of teacher identity relating research in the course of trainings they go through in years. In light of the findings, it can be said that promoting research skills among students should go beyond integrating a compulsory course at graduate level, be handled with an across-the-curriculum understanding and further expand to bridge pre-service and in-service teacher education with a systematic approach through university-school collaboration and teacher-researcher collaboration.


Article visualizations:

Hit counter



pre-service teacher education; in-service teacher education; action research; professional development; research skills; educational research

Full Text:



Alexiadou, N. & Essex, J. (2016). Teacher education for inclusive practice – responding to policy. European Journal of Teacher Education, 39(1), 5-19.

DOI: 10.1080/02619768.2015.1031338.

Banegas, D., Pavese, A., Velázquez, A., & Vélez, S. M. (2013). Teacher professional development through collaborative action research: Impact on foreign English-language teaching and learning. Educational Action Research, 21(2), 185-201. DOI: 10.1080/09650792.2013.789717.

Barbre, J. O., & Buckner, B. J. (2013). Utilizing action research during student teaching: should every teacher preparation program be doing this? SAGE Open, January-March, 1–6. DOI: 10.1177/2158244013482468.

Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. London:


Beycioglu, K., Özer, N., & Uğurlu, C. T. (2010). Teachers' views on educational research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1088-1093.

Black-Hawkins, K. & Amrhein, B. (2014). Valuing student teachers' perspectives: Researching inclusively in inclusive education? International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 37(4), 357-375. DOI: 10.1080/1743727X.2014.886684.

Borg, S. (2009). English language teachers’ conceptions of research. Applied Linguistics, 30, 355–388.

Brinkman, F. G. & Van Rens, E. M. M. (1999). Student teachers’ research skills as, experienced in their educational training. European Journal of Teacher Education, 22(1), 115-125. DOI: 10.1080/0261976990220109.

Bronkhorst, L. H., Meijer, P. C., Koster, B., Akkerman, S. F., & Vermunt, J. D. (2013). Consequential research designs in research on teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 33, 90-99.

Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices. The

USA: Longman.

Brown, T., Rowley, H., & Smith, K. (2014). Rethinking research in teacher education. British Journal of Educational Studies, 62(3), 281–296.

Cakmakci, G. (2012). Promoting pre-service teachers’ ideas about nature of science through educational research apprenticeship. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(2), 114-135.

Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in community. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249–305.

Cornelissen, F., van Swet, J., Beijaard, D., & Bergen, T. (2011). Aspects of school-university research networks that play a role in developing, sharing and using knowledge based on teacher research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 147-156.

Cresswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousands Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

Dajani, M. (2015). Preparing Palestinian reflective English language teachers through classroom based action research. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 116-139.

Darling-Hammond, L. & Youngs, P. (2002). "Highly qualified teachers": What does "scientifically-based research" actually tell us? Educational Researcher, 31(9), 13-25.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York: Plenum.

Demircioglu, I. H. (2008). Learning how to conduct educational research in teacher, education: A Turkish perspective. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 33(1), 1-17.

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Quantitative, qualitative

and mixed methodologies. New York: Oxford University Press.

Fallona, C. & Johnson, H. (2002). A teacher's and researcher's experiences with power and representation within the practical argument process. Teachers and Teaching, (8)2, 141-154. DOI: 10.1080/13540600220127340.

Gass, S. M., Behney, J., & Plonsky, L. (2013). Second language acquisition. An introductory course (4th ed.). New York: Routledge.

Gao, X. A., Barkhuizen, G., & Chow, A. (2010). ‘Nowadays, teachers are relatively obedient’: Understanding primary school English teachers’ conceptions of and drives for research in China. Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 61–81. DOI: 10.1177/1362168810383344.

Geerdink, G., Boei, F., Willemse, M., Kools, Q., & Vlokhoven, H. V. (2016). Fostering teacher educators’ professional development in research and in supervising student teachers’ research. Teachers and Teaching, 22(8), 965-982. DOI:10.1080/13540602.2016.1200544.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1980). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for

qualitative research (11th ed.). New York: Aldine Publishing Company.

Gleeson, J., Sugrue, C., & O'Flaherty, J. (2017). Research capacity and initial teacher education reform: Irish experiences, international perspectives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 62, 19-29.

Goldstein, L. S. (2002) Moving Beyond Collaboration: Re-describing research relationships classroom teachers. Teachers and Teaching, 8(2), 155-170.

DOI: 10.1080/13540600220127359.

Grossman, P. & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 184 –205. DOI: 10.3102/0002831207312906.

Hagevik, R., Aydeniz, M., & Rowell, C. G. (2012). Using action research in middle level teacher education to evaluate and deepen reflective practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 675-684.

Hahn, C. (2008). Doing qualitative research using your computer: A practical guide. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Hine, G. S. C. (2013). The importance of action research in teacher education programs. Issues in Educational Research, 23(2), 151-163.

Impedovo, M. A., & Khatoon Malik, S. (2016). Becoming a reflective in-service teacher: Role of research attitude. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(1), 100-112.

Joseph, D. (2011). Early Career teaching: Learning to be a teacher and staying in the job. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(9). Retrieved from

Kayaoglu, M. N. (2015). Teacher researchers in action research in a heavily centralized education system. Educational Action Research, 23(2), 140-161.

DOI: 10.1080/09650792.2014.997260.

Kinchin, I. M. & Hay, D. B. (2007). The myth of the research‐led teacher. Teachers and Teaching, 13(1), 43-61.

Kolb, S. M. (2012). Grounded theory and the constant comparative method: Valid research, strategies for educators. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies (JETERAPS), 3(1), 83-86.

Leeman, Y. & Wardekker, W. (2014). Teacher research and the aims of education. Teachers and Teaching, 20(1), 45-58. DOI: 10.1080/13540602.2013.848516.

Loughran, J. J. (2004). Student teacher as researcher: Accepting greater responsibility for learning about teaching. Australian Journal of Education, 48(2), 212–220.

Magos, K. (2012). ‘…, But I cannot do research’: Action-research and early childhood teachers. A case study from Greece. Teachers and Teaching, 18(3), 331-343. DOI: 10.1080/13540602.2012.629839.

McKay, S. L. (2006). Researching second language classrooms. Lawrence Erlbaum, Associates Publishers: London.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage


Mills, G. E. (2011). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Moran, M. J., Bové, C., Brookshire, R., Braga, P., & Mantovani, S. (2017). Learning from each other: The design and implementation of a cross-cultural research and professional development model in Italian and U.S. toddler classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 1-11.

Munthe, E., & Rogne, M. (2015). Research based teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 46, 17-24.

Murray, J., Campbell, A., Hextall, I., Hulme, M., Jones, M., Mahony, P., Menter, I., Procter, R., & Wall, K. (2009). Research and teacher education in the UK: Building capacity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 944–950.

Nunan, D., & Bailey, K. M. (2009). Exploring second language classroom research: A

comprehensive guide. Heinle Cengage Learning: Canada.

Pipere, A., Veisson, M., & SalÓte, I. (2015). Developing research in teacher education for sustainability: UN DESD via the Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 17(2), 5-43.

Schenke, W., van Driel,J. H., Geijsel,F. P., Sligte, H. W., & Volman, M. L. L. (2016). Characterizing cross-professional collaboration in research and development projects in secondary education. Teachers and Teaching, (22)5, 553-569. DOI: 10.1080/13540602.2016.1158465.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New

York: Basic Books.

Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. London: Jossey-Bass.

Sikula, J. P. (1996). Handbook of research on teacher education (second edition). Reston,Virginia, U.S.A.: MacMillan Reference Books.

Souto-Manning, M. (2012) Teacher as researcher: Teacher action research in teacher education. Childhood Education, 88(1), 54-56. DOI:10.1080/00094056.2012.643726.

Stokking, K., van der Schaaf, m., Jaspers, J., & Erkens, G. (2004). Teachers’ assessment of students’ research skills. British Educational Research Journal, 30(1), 93-116.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (Eds). (1998). Basics of qualitative research, techniques and

procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). London, CA: Sage Publications.

Stringer, E. T. (2008). Action research in education (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Pearson.

Thornberg, R. (2012). Informed grounded theory. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 56(3), 243-259.

Thornley, C., Parker, R., Read, K., & Eason, V. (2004). Developing a research partnership: Teachers as researchers and teacher educators. Teachers and Teaching, 10(1), 20-33.

Tosun, C. (2014). Pre-service teachers’ opinions about the course on scientific research methods and the levels of knowledge and skills they gained in this course. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(10), 96-112.

Ulvik, M. & Riese, H. (2016) Action research in pre-service teacher education – a never ending story promoting professional development. Professional Development in Education, 42(3), 441-457. DOI: 10.1080/19415257.2014.1003089.

van der Linden, W., Bakx, A., Ros, A., Beijaard, D., & Vermeulen, M. (2012). Student teachers’ development of a positive attitude towards research and research knowledge and skill. European Journal of Teacher Education, 35(4), 401-419. DOI: 10.1080/02619768.2011.643401.

van Ingen, S., & Ariew, S. (2015). Making the invisible visible: Preparing preservice teachers for first steps in linking research to practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 51, 182-190.

Vaughan M. & Burnaford, G. (2016) Action research in graduate teacher education: A review of the literature 2000–2015. Educational Action Research, 24(2), 280-299. DOI: 10.1080/09650792.2015.1062408.

Wang, Q. & Zhang, H. (2014). Promoting teacher autonomy through university–school collaborative action research. Language Teaching Research, 18(2), 222 –241.

DOI: 10.1177/1362168813505942.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wiens, P. D. (2012). The missing link: Research on teacher education. Action in Teacher Education, 34(3), 249-261. DOI: 10.1080/01626620.2012.694018.

Xu, Y. (2014). Becoming researchers: A narrative study of Chinese university EFL teachers’ research practice and their professional identity construction. Language Teaching Research, 18(2), 242–259. DOI: 10.1177/1362168813505943.

Yee, F. C. F. (2014) Reflections on teaching and research: Two inseparable components in higher education. Teachers and Teaching, 20(6), 755-763.

DOI: 10.1080/13540602.2014.885700.

Yuan, R. & Burns, A. (2016). Teacher identity development through action research: A Chinese experience. Teachers and Teaching, 0(0), 1-21. DOI: 10.1080/13540602.2016.1219713.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2001). Action learning and action research: Paradigm, praxis and programs. In Sankara, S., Dick, B. and Passfield, R. (eds.), Effective Change Management through Action Research and Action Learning: Concepts, Perspectives, Processes and Applications, pp. 1-20. Southern Cross University Press, Lismore, Australia.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright © 2015. European Journal of English Language Teaching (ISSN 2501-7136) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing GroupAll rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms.

All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).