a voice in this ‘ long , focused discussion ’. In discussion , each teacher had access to three sets of voices : their own , articulating their values , previous experiences and ways of thinking and acting ( the ‘ first voice ’); their colleagues ’, who shared some of these but not others ( the ‘ second voice ’); and the research , which provided an external view ( the ‘ third voice ’).
This ‘ third voice ’ was never a strong voice ; it was always subordinate to the ‘ first ’ and ‘ second ’ voices . Some teachers found it old and possibly out-of-date ; it was generated in unfamiliar contexts and was perhaps slightly inaccessible . It could be ignored at times , and the teachers did not shy away from criticising it . But sometimes , the research voice was thought about and acted upon so . If there was a discrepancy between the research and their own experience , experience sometimes prevailed but at other times , the teachers ’ opinions and habitual ways of thinking changed , as discussion with their colleagues and the research challenged them with perspectives different from their own .
In order to be admitted to the discussion , knowledge from research had to be brought into relationship with other knowledge , usually from the teachers ’ previous experiences of teaching and being taught . At least one teacher in the discussion had to find the research knowledge neither implausible nor obvious . Once admitted to the discussion , the research influenced both the content of teachers ’ thinking , and their ways of thinking . This sometimes led to practical changes and , when it did , this could be called ‘ research informed teaching ’. Sometimes , research fulfilled a confirmatory role , reassuring teachers that their practice accorded with research .
Within these long , focused discussions , the research texts gave the teachers material to think about including ,
A . Focuses for inquiry . Most teachers reported that the research projects had encouraged them to have a stronger than normal focus on the particular topic of the research . For example , when reading and discussing research about Low-SES pupils , they focused more on that group .
B . Challenges to existing thinking and practice . Sometimes teachers found that their own practice , or the practice of the school , was not supported by research – they were sometimes doing things which , in general , might have no effect or even a negative effect .
C . Concepts . Sometimes the research gave teachers new concepts ; sometimes it helped them to refine their existing concepts ( e . g . rarely noticed or ‘ grey ’ pupils ).
D . Ideas for action . Often the research gave teachers some ideas that they would put into practice , even when these ideas were not the main focus of the research .
There was also evidence that the research papers influenced how the teachers thought . This included ,
A . Becoming more willing to experiment . For example , one teacher explained that she had been afraid of challenging students in her lessons , in case they did not understand her questions . However , reading the research had given her permission to do this and she had now done this , even though it had sometimes provoked uncomfortable silences . She remarked , ‘ I think it ’ s helped me be a better teacher ’.
B . Becoming more critical . At various times the teachers critiqued the research papers , citing within-research issues , issues around generalizing from research to practice , and non-congruence with personal values as reasons for their ctiticism .
C . Developing their understanding of evidence . The teachers discussed differences between what they called ‘ hard ’ evidence ( such as test data ) and ‘ soft ’ evidence ( such as observation data ) and they sometimes critiqued the way that data had been collected and interpreted .
D . Developing ethical awareness . The teachers sometimes discussed ethical issues in the research and in their own teaching – for example , the ethics of giving more time and attention to particular groups of pupils .
We found no examples of teachers reading research and saying ‘ Ok , I ’ ll change what I ’ m doing ’. But I think this is a good thing – research is intended to be thought about , criticised , and even wrestled with . In the process of reading and discussing research , teachers did become ‘ research-informed ’. Perhaps the most encouraging of our findings was that , in many cases , they enjoyed this process and thought that it had helped them improve their teaching .
Further information can be found in Cain , T . ( 2019 ) Becoming a research-informed school : Why ? What ? How ? London : Routledge .
3