ARTICLE IN PRESS

Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 731–747

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Research engagement in English language teaching

Simon Borg
School of Education, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK
Received 3 November 2005; received in revised form 21 March 2006; accepted 23 March 2006

Abstract

Despite the substantial amount of work which has been conducted into teachers’ research engagement in mainstream
education, this topic has been awarded scant attention in the field of English language teaching. This paper presents the
results of a survey representing the first stage of multi-method investigation of research engagement in ELT. Moderate
levels of reading and doing research were reported by the sample studied here, and this level of research engagement is
analysed in relation to two key factors also examined in the survey: teacher’s conceptions of research and their perceptions
of the institutional research culture.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Research engagement; English language teaching; Evidence-based practice.

1. Introduction with and in research and make pedagogical deci-

sions informed by sound research evidence, this will
1.1. Evidence-based practice have a beneficial effect on both teaching and
learning (Hargreaves, 2001). While the validity of
In the light of highly publicised arguments about the EBP metaphor to education is by no means
the quality of educational research (e.g. Hargreaves, unquestionably accepted (e.g. Hammersley, 2004),
1996; Tooley & Darby, 1998), educational policy in and debates continue about what counts as appro-
the UK, in common with that in the USA and priate evidence in EBP (e.g. Maxwell, 2004;
Australia (Department of Education Training and Morrison, 2001) and how the relationship between
Youth Affairs, 2000; Shavelson & Towne, 2002) has research evidence and professional practice can be
in recent years been characterised by a drive to best conceived (Thomas, 2004), it is generally
engage classroom teachers more fully both with and accepted that more informed use of and involve-
in educational research and thus to make teaching ment in research by teachers can enhance the quality
an evidence-based profession. The thinking behind of education.
evidence-based practice (EBP) has been extensively
described and debated in the literature (e.g. Davies, 1.1.1. Teachers’ views of research
1999; Elliot, 2002; Thomas & Pring, 2004); one Within the framework of EBP outlined above,
fundamental argument is that when teachers engage one strand of inquiry has focused on examining
what teachers actually think about research (Ever-
E-mail address: s.borg@education.leeds.ac.uk. ton, Galton, & Pell, 2000, 2002; McNamara, 2002;

0742-051X/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.03.012
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
732 S. Borg / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 731–747

Ratcliffe et al., 2004; Shkedi, 1998). The rationale also highlighted three reasons why teachers did not
for such inquiry has been that initiatives to promote sustain their engagement in research: (a) the lack of
EBP are more likely to have an impact if they are external pressure to do so; (b) lack of time; and (c)
based on an understanding of teachers’ conceptions personal dispositions (e.g. beliefs that research is an
of research and of the role research plays in their activity done by outside experts). In order to
work. I will now comment briefly on key findings understand the processes of research engagement
from some of this work. in schools and colleges, Barker (2005) conducted
Everton et al. (2002) surveyed 572 teachers who interviews with 21 educational providers in the UK
were asked, amongst other issues, whether research who were known be involved in and supportive of
had influenced their teaching and whether they were practitioner research. In this case, the main reason
interested in engaging in research themselves. In teachers participated in research was found to be a
McNamara (2002), 100 teachers were surveyed on desire to improve the quality of teaching and
issues such as what image educational research held learning. This study, though, also examined re-
for them and whether they felt research might have search engagement at the institutional level. A key
an impact on their work. Both these studies finding was that ‘‘organisational commitment to
suggested that teachers acknowledged the potential participate in research, with recognition of the time
positive impact of research on various aspects of and resources required to do this’’ (p. 5) is
professional practice. In both cases too, though, important if teachers are to be involved in research.
respondents highlighted the need for published The central influence of the institution on teachers’
educational research to be both more accessible as engagement with research has been similarly high-
well as more applicable to teachers’ work. The study lighted in a number of other sources (e.g. Ebbutt,
by Ratcliffe et al. (2004), based on interviews with 2001; Handscomb & Macbeath, 2003; Hemsley-
over 60 science educators, found that respondents, Brown & Sharp, 2003; Sharp, Eames, Sanders, &
unless already experienced in research, had limited Tomlinson, 2005). One of these, for example,
understandings of the nature of and the processes concluded that ‘‘the main barriers to knowledge
involved in social science research. This study also use y are not at the level of individual resistance,
explored the influence of research on what teachers but originated in an institutionalised culture that
do; a key finding here was that any such influence does not foster learning’’ (Hemsley-Brown & Sharp,
was more indirect (e.g. through curricula and 2003, p. 46). Overall, then, in education generally
instructional materials) than direct (e.g. through there has been growing interest in recent years not
reading research reports). only in the nature of teachers’ engagement in
research but also in the role institutions play in
1.1.2. Research engaged teachers shaping this engagement.
A related strand of inquiry has focused on the
notion of research engaged teachers and schools. In 1.2. Research engagement in english language
recent years there have been a number of funded teaching
initiatives in the UK aimed at increasing teachers’
engagement in research (e.g. see the DfES website at In comparison to the volume of empirical work
http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/research/re- which has been conducted into teachers’ research
sources/#1101481 for a number of these); addition- engagement in education generally, little research
ally the Networked Learning Communities project into this area has been conducted in the field of
run by the National College for School Leadership, English language teaching (ELT). In the work
and earlier work by the Teacher Training Agency which does exist, McDonough and McDonough
and General Teaching Council for England (see, (1990) conducted a brief survey of the views of
e.g., Cordingley, Bell, Evans, & Holdich, 2005). In research of 34 teachers of English as a foreign
reviewing one such initiative (the Cambridge-based language, while Brown (1992) surveyed 334 mem-
Schools University Partnership for Educational bers of an international association for ELT
Research), Worrall (2004) surveyed 28 teachers in teachers. These studies, echoing those outside
the UK in order to examine why they engaged in ELT, reported notions of research closely tied to
research. By far the most common reason cited (23 quantitative and statistical methods and a general
times) was ‘to generate a greater understanding of ambivalence about the role of educational research
specific issues in teaching and learning’. This study in teachers’ professional lives. Crookes and Arakaki
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Borg / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 731–747 733

(1999) refer to some factors which hinder teachers’ The larger research programme referred to above
research engagement (e.g. lack of time) while reflects what Creswell (2003) calls a sequential
McDonough and McDonough (1990) cite concep- explanatory multi-method strategy. This is a design
tual inaccessibility as another barrier. Papers based which ‘‘is characterised by the collection and
on the languages inservice programme for teachers analysis of quantitative data followed by the
(LIPT) in Australia (a context which is perhaps collection and analysis of qualitative data’’ (p.
unique in the opportunities it has provided for 215). This survey is the first part of this strategy,
language teachers to be research engaged) have allowing for the initial, more extensive analysis of
discussed in more detail how the conditions of data but also being the means through which a
teachers’ work may militate against research en- smaller sample of participants will be identified for
gagement and the strategies through which teacher the subsequent interview phase of the study (see
research engagement might be achieved (Burton, Findings, Section 3.6). Overall, the aim of the
1997, 1998; Burton & Mickan, 1993). Generally, programme of research is to understand the con-
though, teachers’ conceptions of research and the ceptions of research held by ELT teachers working
nature of teachers’ research engagement do not in different contexts, the role which both reading
seem to have been studied in any systematic way in and doing research plays in these teachers’ profes-
ELT. There has, in contrast, been more extensive sional lives, and the factors which influence their
theoretical discussion of relationships between research engagement.
teachers and research in ELT, and this has included
commentaries on the factors, such as the attitudes, 2.1.1. Research questions
knowledge and skills teachers have, which may A self-report questionnaire was developed to
support or discourage them from engaging with and address the aims outlined above. Specifically, it
in research (Borg, 2003a, 2003b, 2003c; Ellis, 1997; aimed to collect data relevant to the following
Freeman, 1996; Markee, 1997). Empirical research questions:
into these issues, though, is required if we are to
develop an evidence-base which can inform policy 1. What are the characteristics of ‘research’ accord-
and initiatives aimed at promoting research engage- ing to ELT teachers?
ment by teachers in ELT. 2. To what extent do teachers say they read
This review of the literature suggests that while in published research?
education more generally the development of policy a. What impact do they believe this reading has
in promoting EBP has been informed by studies of on their practices?
teachers’ conceptions of research and of the factors, b. Where teachers do not read research, what
including the institution, which influence the extent reasons do they cite?
to which teachers can be research engaged, in ELT 3. To what extent do teachers say they do
there has to date been little empirical study of these research?
issues. This gap in our understanding means we are a. What are their reasons for engaging in
unable to make informed decisions about the research?
development of policy and initiatives whose aim is b. Where teachers do not do research, what
to enable teachers to engage more fully both with reasons do they cite?
and in research. I am developing a programme of 4. What are teachers’ perceptions of their institu-
research which aims to address these issues and here tional culture in relation to research?
I report on the survey which forms the first stage in 5. How do these perceptions relate to teachers’
this programme. research engagement?
6. Do teachers’ experience and qualifications
2. Method relate to the degree of research engagement they
report?
2.1. The survey
2.1.2. Design
In the form of a questionnaire, the cross-sectional The survey had six sections, focusing in turn on
survey allows large amounts of data to be collected respondents’ background information, their con-
efficiently, economically, and in a standardised ceptions of what counts as research, their views
manner (Aldridge & Levine, 2001; Dörnyei, 2002). about the characteristics of good-quality research,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
734 S. Borg / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 731–747

their perceptions of their institutional culture in 2.1.3. Administration

relation to research, their engagement in reading The questionnaire was administered to teachers
research, and their engagement in doing research. on a Freshman English programme at a university
This range of themes was chosen on the basis of in Turkey in June 2005. All 62 teachers teaching on
issues raised in the literature reviewed earlier, both the programme were invited to complete the
in education generally and in ELT. questionnaire, which was distributed and collected
Section 1 collected background data about the by a member of the management team for this
teachers. Information was requested which was felt programme.
to be relevant to understanding teachers’ research
engagement (e.g. qualifications and experience). 3. Results
Information on gender, for example, was not
requested as there was no reason to hypothesise 3.1. Background information
that this might be a relevant factor. In Section 2, the
use of research scenarios was suggested by the work Questionnaires were returned by 50 teachers,
of Ratcliffe et al. (2004), who used a similar strategy representing a response rate of 80.6%. The data
in interviews as part of a study of science education were analysed using SPSS 12. Section 1 asked about
teachers’ views of research. Collectively, the scenar- (1) the country where teachers work; (2) years of
ios devised for this study aimed to portray a range experience as an English language teacher; (3)
of activities with different characteristics (e.g. highest relevant qualification to ELT; (4) type of
methods, data, outputs) and which might, depend- institution (private or state); (5) whether the
ing on one’s definition, be called research. An earlier institution was attached to a university; and (6)
draft of the questionnaire contained additional the age of the learners respondents taught most
scenarios (e.g. one depicting a single case qualitative often. As part of the larger research programme the
study) and also asked teachers to give reasons for questionnaire will be administered to ELT teachers
their choices; to keep the instrument to a reasonable in a range of contexts around the world and this
length, though, and to minimise the amount of information will facilitate comparisons among
writing required of respondents, I decided to limit these. For this administration, though, the respon-
the number of scenarios to ten and to leave the dents were homogenous in several respects and this
exploration of reasons to the follow-up interviews. was reflected in their replies to items 1, 4, 5 and 6:
Section 3 drew on discussions of different ap- they all worked in Turkey, at a private institution
proaches to research (see, for example, Cohen, which was part of a university, teaching students in
Manion, & Morrison, 2000) in order to investigate their late teens or early 20s. The results to items 2
the characteristics respondents felt were important and 3 in Section 1 are summarised in Tables 1 and 2
in determining the quality of a piece of research. below. In terms of experience, the largest group of
The characteristics listed (full details are described teachers belonged to the 10–14 group, while in terms
in the findings below) referred to issues of research of qualifications the figure that stands out is that
design, data collection, analysis, and application. almost 68% of the teachers said they had a Master’s
Section 4, on institutional attitudes to research, was degree relevant to ELT. This reflects the university-
suggested by empirical work mentioned earlier based EFL context in which this study took place.
which indicates that the institution influences
teachers’ research engagement. The lists of factors 3.2. Conceptions of research
presented in Sections 5 and 6 in relation to why
teachers do and do not read and do research were Sections 2 and 3 of the questionnaire examined
informed by the discussion of these issues both in respondents’ views of what research is and of the
the ELT literature and outside. Collectively, the characteristics of good-quality research.
items covered in the survey addressed the range of
research questions listed above. 3.2.1. Evaluating research scenarios
The design of the questionnaire—question types, In Section 2, the teachers were asked to indicate
wording, layout, length—was informed by the to what extent they felt the activities described in ten
relevant methodological literature (e.g. Aldridge & scenarios were or were not research. The scenarios
Levine, 2001; Dörnyei, 2002; Fowler, 2002; Oppen- are listed in Table 3. The findings for this question
heim, 1992). are summarised in Table 4, which gives the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Borg / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 731–747 735

Table 1 teachers (98%) was number 4, in which a university

Respondents by years of ELT experience lecturer conducts a large-scale survey and analyses
Years N %
the data statistically. This was the only scenario out
of the 10 where no respondent felt that it was
0–4 1 2.0 definitely not research. This is perhaps not surpris-
5–9 12 25.0 ing as it does explicitly mention a number of
10–14 16 33.3
elements (e.g. questionnaires, statistics) which tea-
15–19 9 18.8
20–24 5 10.4 chers often associate with research (see, for exam-
25+ 6 12.5 ple, Shkedi, 1998 and similar studies cited earlier).
Total 49 100.0
Scenario 6 was also highly rated, with 87.5%
judging it to be in the ‘research’ category. This too
Throughout the paper, where totals in tables do not add up to 50 reflects characteristics (e.g. pre- and post-tests)
or 100%, this is due to missing data. typically associated with research, though in this
case no explicit research terminology was used.
Scenario 8 was that least recognised as research
Table 2 (73.5% placed it in the ‘not research’ category).
Respondents by highest ELT qualification Asking learners for feedback is a routine pedagogi-
Qualification N %
cal or administrative activity which is not normally
recognised as research. The low number of feedback
Certificate 1 2.0 sheets returned and the use to which the informa-
Diploma 4 8.2 tion was put may have also contributed to the low
Bachelor’s 6 12.2
ratings this scenario received. Scenario 1 also
Master’s 33 67.3
Doctorate 5 10.2 received a low rating, with 68% of teachers rating
it as ‘not research’. Nonetheless, 28% of respon-
Total 49 100
dents still felt it was probably research and 4% that
it was definitely so. The spread of responses was
even more pronounced on scenarios 7, 9 and 10. For
percentage of teachers selecting each of the four example, on scenario 9, while 20% said it was
possible ratings for each scenario. definitely research, 18% said it was definitely not.
Fig. 1 collapses these results into two categories There are clearly elements here which for some
for each scenario—‘Not research’ made up of teachers were characteristic of research (e.g. perhaps
definitely not research and probably not research) the analysis of data and the writing of an article);
and ‘Research’ (probably research and definitely others were clear in their views though that this was
research). This allows the overall direction of the not research (e.g. perhaps because there was no a
teachers’ responses to emerge more clearly. priori research question to guide data collection or
While defining research is in itself not a straight- because the writing of the article was not originally
forward issue, it is possible to extract from the intended). This item is particularly indicative of the
research methodology literature (e.g. Brown & diversity which exists among the teachers in terms of
Rodgers, 2002; Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, their understandings of what counts as research.
2000; Nunan, 1992; Wiersma, 1991) a number of Exploring these understandings in more detail (e.g.
commonly cited minimal elements—a problem or the reasons underlying their assessments of the
question, data, analysis, interpretation. Character- scenarios) will be one goal of the follow-up inter-
istics of the process, such as systematicity and views.
rigour, are often commonly cited (though these are The ratings of these scenarios were studied (using
of course open to multiple interpretations). Addi- Spearman’s rank correlation) for associations with
tionally, it has been argued that to qualify as teachers’ qualifications (banded into two cate-
research, inquiry needs to be made public (e.g. gories—up to BA and over BA) and experience
Freeman, 1996; Stenhouse, 1975). These factors will (0–9, 10–19, 20+). No significant relationships were
be borne in mind as the results to this question are found between teachers’ ratings and their qualifica-
analysed. tions; experience did relate though to scenario
It is clear from Table 4 and Fig. 1 that the 5 (N ¼ 48, r ¼ 0.375, po0.01) and 9 (N ¼ 49,
scenario which was rated as research by most r ¼ 0.311, po0.05). Though statistically significant,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
736 S. Borg / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 731–747

Table 3
Scenarios rated by teachers

1. A teacher noticed that an activity she used in class did not work well. She thought about this after the lesson and made some notes in
her diary. She tried something different in her next lesson. This time the activity was more successful.
2. A teacher read about a new approach to teaching writing and decided to try it out in his class over a period of 2 weeks. He video
recorded some of his lessons and collected samples of learners’ written work. He analysed this information then presented the results to
his colleagues at a staff meeting.
3. A teacher was doing an MA course. She read several books and articles about grammar teaching then wrote an essay of 6000 words in
which she discussed the main points in those readings.
4. A university lecturer gave a questionnaire about the use of computers in language teaching to 500 teachers. Statistics were used to
analyse the questionnaires. The lecturer wrote an article about the work in an academic journal.
5. Two teachers were both interested in discipline. They observed each other’s lessons once a week for 3 months and made notes about
how they controlled their classes. They discussed their notes and wrote a short article about what they learned for the newsletter of the
national language teachers’ association.
6. To find out which of two methods for teaching vocabulary was more effective, a teacher first tested two classes. Then for 4 weeks she
taught vocabulary to each class using a different method. After that she tested both groups again and compared the results to the first
test. She decided to use the method which worked best in her own teaching.
7. A headmaster met every teacher individually and asked them about their working conditions. The head made notes about the teachers’
answers. He used his notes to write a report which he submitted to the Ministry of Education.
8. Mid-way through a course, a teacher gave a class of 30 students a feedback form. The next day, five students handed in their completed
forms. The teacher read these and used the information to decide what to do in the second part of the course.
9. A teacher trainer asked his trainees to write an essay about ways of motivating teenage learners of English. After reading the
assignments the trainer decided to write an article on the trainees’ ideas about motivation. He submitted his article to a professional
journal.
10. The Head of the English department wanted to know what teachers thought of the new course book. She gave all teachers a
questionnaire to complete, studied their responses, then presented the results at a staff meeting.

Table 4 Scenario 10
Teachers’ assessment of ten scenarios Not Research
Scenario 9 Research
Definitely Probably Probably Definitely
Scenario 8
not not research research
research research (%) (%) Scenario 7
(%) (%)
Scenario 6
Scenario 1 44.0 24.0 28.0 4.0
Scenario 5
Scenario 2 4.1 12.2 36.7 46.9
Scenario 3 10.2 20.4 40.8 28.6 Scenario 4
Scenario 4 0 2.0 28.6 69.4
Scenario 5 6.1 18.4 38.8 36.7 Scenario 3
Scenario 6 4.2 8.3 33.3 54.2 Scenario 2
Scenario 7 14.3 32.7 30.6 22.4
Scenario 8 28.6 44.9 16.3 10.2 Scenario 1
Scenario 9 18.0 38.0 24.0 20.0
Scenario 10 12.0 34.0 36.0 18.0 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Percentage of teachers

the strength of these relationships was weak Fig. 1. Teachers’ assessment of ten research scenarios.
(Salkind, 2004, p. 88) suggests that a correlation
of less than 0.4 is weak and that 0.4–0.6 is underlying concept (teachers’ conceptions of re-
moderate). Overall, then, there are no grounds here search).
for concluding that experience is associated with
these teachers’ ratings of the scenarios. 3.2.2. Characteristics of good quality research
It is also interesting to note that teachers’ ratings Section 3 of the questionnaire focused further on
of the ten scenarios yielded a Cronbach’s a of 0.82. teachers’ conceptions of research by asking them to
This figure indicates that the scenarios scale well rate the importance to good-quality research of a
and can be considered to address a common list of characteristics. Table 5 summarises the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Borg / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 731–747 737

responses to this question. For the purposes of this generalisability, were not rated very highly, while
table, ‘Less important’ includes ‘unimportant’ and the practical utility of results to teachers received
‘moderately important’ ratings for each character- the fifth highest rating here (‘the results give
istic, while ‘More important’ constitutes ‘important’ teachers ideas they can use’).
and ‘very important’ responses. The responses are The characteristics teachers were asked to com-
listed in descending order according to the percen- ment on included a number of data collection
tage of teachers who indicated that a characteristic strategies (e.g. experiments, interviews). The reason
was ‘more important’. for their inclusion is that research can sometimes be
The characteristic which was seen overall to be directly equated with the use of a specific method
most important was ‘the researcher is objective’— (Gorard, 2001, p. 80, for example, comments that
97.9% of ratings for this item were in the ‘more research is often strongly associated with surveys or
important’ group. ‘Hypotheses are tested’ was the alternatively with interviews). The results here do
second most rated as important, while the third not suggest that data collection methods in them-
highest rated characteristic was ‘variables are selves were seen as a determinant of research quality
controlled’. Taken together, teachers’ views here (in fact, three of the four lowest rated characteristics
reflect a conception of research where objectivity, were related to methods).
hypothesis testing, and the manipulation of vari- The teachers were asked to suggest further
ables are fundamental concerns. I will comment features of good-quality research and 11 respon-
further on these findings later in the paper, but they dents made suggestions. Four referred to the need
do reflect those emerging from similar studies for research to draw on existing sources, suggesting
outside ELT. Having said that, it is interesting that that these should be current, reliable and varied.
other notions commonly associated with ‘scientific’ One respondent also mentioned the manner in
research, such as the use of experiments and which research is communicated as being important:
It’s important that research is conveyed to
teachers in ways they can understand. Statistics
Table 5 for example are not always helpful for language
Teachers’ views on the importance of sixteen research character- teachers unless they are analyzed verbally.
istics
Contemporary discussions of quality in research
Characteristics Less More (e.g. Boaz & Ashby, 2003) do in fact recognise the
important important quality of communication as an important criterion.
(%) (%)
Other characteristics mentioned were the need for
The researcher is objective 2.1 97.9 clear conclusions to be drawn from the analysis of
Hypotheses are tested 12.5 87.5 the data, the need for a clear statement of the
Variables are controlled 16.7 79.2 problem being investigated, the choice of topics that
A large number of people are 26.5 73.5
are ‘interesting’, and the integrity of the tools used
studied
The results give teachers ideas they 25.0 70.8 to collect data.
can use Teachers’ ratings of the 16 characteristics were
The topic studied is of interest to 27.1 66.7 also analysed in terms of qualifications and experi-
teachers ence. The results appear in Table 6. Teachers’ rating
Information is analysed statistically 37.5 62.5
A large volume of information is 39.6 60.4
of one characteristic—‘The results apply to many
collected ELT contexts’ was in a significant positive relation-
The results are made public 37.5 56.3 ship to both qualifications and experience, though
Observations are used 40.4 55.3 in both cases the strength of the association was
Practical teaching problems are 45.8 52.1 weak. Nonetheless this suggests that generalisability
studied
was an issue valued more by teachers with higher
Information is collected in real 46.8 51.1
classrooms qualifications and more experience. Qualifications
Questionnaires are used 45.7 50.0 were in a negative relationship with the value
Experiments are used 45.8 47.9 attached to statistical analysis. This indicates that
The results apply to many ELT 56.3 39.6 teachers’ ratings of the value of this characteristic
contexts
decreased as their qualifications increased. And
Interviews are used 56.3 37.5
experience was significantly but weakly associated
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
738 S. Borg / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 731–747

Table 6
Relationship of ratings of research characteristics to qualifications and experience

Characteristic N Qualification r Experience r

A large number of people are studied 49 0.011 0.097

A large volume of information is collected 48 0.009 0.105
Experiments are used 48 0.124 0.111
Hypotheses are tested 48 0.106 0.022
Information is analysed statistically 48 0.274 0.098
Information is collected in real classrooms 47 0.153 0.003
Interviews are used 48 0.189 0.244
Observations are used 47 0.222 0.144
Practical teaching problems are studied 48 0.222 0.075
Questionnaires are used 46 0.034 0.184
The researcher is objective 47 0.074 0.070
The results apply to many ELT contexts 48 0.331 0.300
The results are made public 48 0.133 0.201
The results give teachers ideas they can use 48 0.023 0.008
The topic studied is of interest to teachers 48 0.080 0.280
Variables are controlled 48 0.027 0.104
 po0.05 (1-tailed).

with teachers’ views about the importance in good- 3.3. Research culture
quality research of topics which are of interest to
teachers. As noted earlier, there is evidence in the literature
Correlations tell us about associations but they that institutional culture will influence the extent to
do not indicate whether teachers with different which teachers are research engaged. The questions
levels of qualification and experience were signifi- in Section 4 of the questionnaire aimed to elicit
cantly different in the way in they rated the teachers’ views of the extent to which they worked
importance of the different research characteristics. in an environment which encouraged learning about
Although the practice of generating mean scores and doing research. Table 7 summarises these views
from ordinal data is an area of debate in the (the original five point scale, with ‘disagree strongly’
literature on statistics (see, for example, Bryman & and ‘agree strongly’ at the extremes, has been
Cramer, 2005; Gorard, 2001), it is common in collapsed into three categories and responses
published educational research. In this case, calcu- expressed as percentages).
lating the mean ratings for each characteristic As Table 7 indicates, the majority of teachers
allows us to compare whether there were differences agreed with five of the statements. On one item
in the ratings of teachers with differing qualifica- (‘Teachers talk about research’), the responses were
tions and experience. When qualifications are spread over the three categories, while on the
grouped into two categories—up to BA, and above remaining two items teachers’ views were less
BA—Mann–Whitney’s test shows that the only positive; 40% disagreed that ‘teachers feel that
significant difference between the two groups was doing research is an important part of their job’,
in their rating of the item ‘the results apply to many while 77.6% disagreed that ‘time for doing research
ELT contexts’ (up to BA mean rating ¼ 1.55, above is built into teachers’ workloads’. Overall, though,
BA mean rating ¼ 2.45, U ¼ 117.5, p ¼ 0.023). the responses to this question suggest that the
When experience is banded into three groups— institution was seen to constitute a positive context
0–9, 10–19, and 20+—and the mean ratings on for research engagement: access to research pub-
each characteristic compared (using the Kruskal– lications was seen to be good, teachers felt they had
Wallis test), no significant differences were found opportunities to learn about current research, and
for any of the characteristics. Overall, then, teachers were believed by colleagues to engage in
teachers’ ratings of the importance of research research themselves.
characteristics did not differ significantly according The eight items in this question were devised on
to their experience and qualifications. the assumption that they addressed a common
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Borg / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 731–747 739

Table 7
Institutional research culture according to teachers

Statement Disagree (%) Don’t know (%) Agree (%)

Teachers do research themselves 16.0 24.0 60.0

The management encourages teachers to do research 36.0 12.0 52.0
Teachers feel that doing research is an important part of their job 40.0 26.0 34.0
Teachers have access to research books and journals 6.1 8.2 85.7
Teachers have opportunities to learn about current research 22.4 8.2 69.4
Teachers talk about research 32.0 30.0 38.0
Teachers are given support to attend ELT conferences 26.0 14.0 60.0
Time for doing research is built into teachers’ workloads 77.6 4.1 18.4

underlying concept, which we may refer to as Teachers’ summated scores on the institutional
institutional research culture. A measure of the culture items in Table 7 were correlated with their
extent to which this assumption is justified is reported frequencies of reading research. A fairly
provided by Cronbach’s a. According to Bryman strong and significant positive relationship was
and Cramer (2005, p. 78), 0.8 is the a level which found (N ¼ 49, r ¼ 0.497, po0.01, 1-tailed). Posi-
indicates a good level of conceptual relatedness tive perceptions of the institution’s research culture,
among items. The a level of 0.783 in this case then, are associated with higher reported levels of
suggests that the items in this question did address a reading published research.
common underlying concept. Each teacher’s re-
sponse on these eight items can therefore be 3.4.2. Influence of reading on practice
summated to provide an overall measure of their Teachers who said they read research often or
views about the institutional research culture. sometimes were asked to indicate what influence they
Below, these summated views are examined in felt this reading had on their teaching. Of the 34
relation to teachers’ reported frequencies of reading teachers responding to this question, 29.4% reported
and doing research. a slight influence, 50% a moderate influence, and
20.6% a fairly strong influence. The extreme options
3.4. Reading research for this item—no influence or a strong influence—
were not selected by any teachers. There was a
Section 5 of the questionnaire asked respondents significant and moderate to strong relationship
about the extent to which they read research, if so, between the frequency of reading research reported
about its impact on their work, and if not, about by teachers and the influence they said this had on
their reasons for not doing so. their teaching (N ¼ 34, r ¼ 0.570, po0.01). These
figures give us a general sense of how teachers rated
3.4.1. Frequency of reading the impact of their reading on their work in the
Forty-nine teachers answered this question; classroom. They are, however, limited in what they
30.6% said they read research rarely, 55.1% some- can tell us about the relationship between research
times and 14.3% often. None chose ‘never’. and classroom practice, a relationship which, as the
Table 8 breaks these responses down by qualifica- work of Ratcliffe et al. (2004) in science education
tion. Roughly a third of the teachers in each has shown, is very complex. This is thus a clear
category said they read research rarely. None of example of why this survey will be followed up with
the teachers qualified up to BA level said they read interviews. These will enable a deeper exploration of
research often, compared to almost 20% of those the ways in which teachers feel their reading
with higher qualifications. influences their work. Interviews will also provide
Table 9 presents these responses in terms of insights into the kinds of published research which
experience. The percentages of teachers in each teachers feel do and do not influence them (this is a
group who said they read research sometimes is theme which has attracted much recent attention in
quite similar; the responses under the ‘often’ head- the context of EBP in the UK—see, for example, the
ing were in contrast quite diverse, with the figure of work of CUREE, the Centre for the Use of Research
4% for the 10–19 group standing out. Evidence in Education at www.curee.co.uk).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
740 S. Borg / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 731–747

Table 8
Reported frequency of reading research by qualification

Qualification Rarely % Sometimes % Often % Total

Up to BA 3 27.3 8 72.7 0 0 11
Above BA 11 29.7 19 51.4 7 18.9 37
Total 14 29.2 27 56.2 7 14.6 48

Table 9
Reported frequency of reading research by experience

Experience Rarely % Sometimes % Often % Total

0–9 4 30.8 7 53.8 2 15.4 13

10–19 10 40.0 14 56.0 1 4.0 25
20+ 1 10 5 50.0 4 40.0 10
Total 15 31.3 26 54.1 7 14.6 48

3.4.3. Reasons for not reading research Table 10

Teachers who reported reading research rarely or Reported reasons for not reading research
never were asked to comment on the reasons for Reasons Frequency
their low engagement with research. The reasons
cited by the 15 teachers answering this question are I do not have time 11
listed in Table 10. Published research does not give me 9
practical advice for the classroom
We can make connections between these com- I am not interested in research 7
ments and the views about the institutional research I find published research hard to 1
culture discussed earlier. No teachers explained understand
their low engagement with published research in
terms of lack of accessibility to books and materials;
this supports the views expressed earlier, where
85.7% of teachers agreed that such materials were 3.5.1. Frequency of doing research
available. Over 77% of teachers, though, also Forty-nine teachers answered this question,
agreed earlier that time for research was not built 38.8% said they did research sometimes, 36.7%
into their workloads and a lack of time was a factor rarely and 26.3% often. Only one individual
cited by over 73% of the teachers who said they reported never doing research. Overall, a significant
read research rarely or sometimes. While the but weak relationship was found between teachers’
comment by over half the teachers answering this reported frequencies of reading and doing research
question that they felt research lacked practical (N ¼ 49, r ¼ 0:285, p ¼ 0.048, 2-tailed). Although
relevance resonates with findings from existing the percentage of teachers who said they engage in
research on teachers’ views of research, the admis- research may appear high, caution is required in
sion by seven teachers that they were not interested interpreting this finding as teachers’ responses will
in research was not wholly expected and indicates have reflected their conceptions of what counts as
that for these individuals the barriers to research research (see Section 2 above). This is thus another
engagement are primarily attitudinal. item which requires deeper exploration through the
follow-up interviews—for example, when a teacher
3.5. Doing research says they engage in research often, what kinds of
activities do they engage in and how frequently?
The last major section of the survey focused on Table 11 and 12 summarise teachers’ reported
teachers’ engagement in research. Teachers were frequency of doing research in terms of qualifica-
asked how often they did research, if so, why, and if tions and experience. A noticeably greater propor-
not, what the reasons for this were. tion of teachers in the more highly qualified group
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Borg / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 731–747 741

Table 11
Reported frequency of doing research by qualification

Never % Rarely % Sometimes % Often % Total

Up to BA 0 0 6 54.5 4 36.4 1 9.1 11

Above BA 1 2.6 12 31.6 15 39.5 10 26.3 38
Total 1 2.0 18 36.7 19 38.8 11 22.4 49

Table 12
Reported frequency of doing research by experience

Never % Rarely % Sometimes % Often % Total

0–9 0 0 6 46.2 3 23.1 4 30.8 13

10–19 1 4.0 8 32.0 12 48.0 4 16.0 25
20+ 0 0 3 30.0 4 40.0 3 30.0 10
Total 1 2.1 17 35.4 19 39.6 11 22.9 48

To solve problems in my teaching.

To find better ways of teaching.
To contribute to the improvement of the school generally.
Because other teachers can learn from the findings of my work.
Because my employer expects me to.
Because it will help me get a promotion.
Because it is good for my professional development.
Because I enjoy it.
As part of a course I am studying on.

0 10 20 30
Frequency

Fig. 2. Reasons for doing research.

said they did research often, though the difference in the institutional research culture is an important
this distribution was not significant. In terms of element in understanding the extent to which
experience, the 0–9 group had the largest proportion teachers are research engaged.
of teachers who said they did research rarely
(46.2%) while the proportion of teachers in the 3.5.2. Reasons for doing research
10–19 group who said they did research often (16%) The 30 teachers who reported doing research
was almost half that in each of the other two often or sometimes were asked to indicate their
groups, though again this difference was not reasons for doing so by selecting items from a list
significant. provided and suggesting others if required. The
Teachers’ summated scores on the institutional findings are summarised in Fig. 2.
culture items in Table 7 were correlated with their No one reason dominated here; the most com-
reported frequencies of doing research. A weak but monly cited reasons were ‘because it is good for my
significant positive relationship was found (N ¼ 49, professional development’ (24 times) and ‘to find
r ¼ 0.305, p ¼ 0.017, 1-tailed). Teachers reporting better ways of teaching’ (23). Nineteen teachers also
more favourable perceptions of the institutional said they do research because they enjoy it. Career
research culture, then, said they did research more advancement did not emerge here as a major factor
often. This suggests that, once again, understanding motivating teachers to do research. Additionally,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
742 S. Borg / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 731–747

none of the teachers said that their employer’s 3.6. Further participation
expectations influenced their involvement in re-
search either. Twelve teachers said they were doing The final item on the questionnaire asked
research as part of a course; this may provide the respondents to indicate whether they would be
kind of external pressure which teachers in the study willing to participate in continuing explorations
by Worrall (2004) said enabled them to sustain their of the issues covered here. As I mentioned at
engagement in research. the outset of the paper, the survey is the first stage
in a larger research strategy which will also involve
3.5.3. Reasons for not doing research in-depth interviews. Eleven teachers (22% of the
The 19 teachers who reported doing research total) responded positively and supplied their name
rarely or never were similarly asked to indicate and e-mail address. Table 13 summarises the
reasons for this. Their responses are summarised in characteristics of these individuals in terms of quali-
Fig. 3. fication, experience, reported frequency of reading
A lack of time was the factor most often cited (16 research and reported frequency of doing re-
times). This factor was mentioned more than twice search. It is positive that a range of characteristics
as often as the next most frequent reason, which was are represented here, including teachers who re-
the view that the work of teachers was to teach, not ported low levels of research engagement. Five of
to do research. This is an example of the kind of these teachers actually participated in a follow-up
deep-rooted belief which Worrall (2004) highlighted interview and these data are currently being
as one reason why teachers did not engage in analysed.
research. Joint third in terms of frequency were
‘most of my colleagues do not do research’ and ‘I
am not interested in doing research’, both of which
were selected five times. A number of these reasons Table 13
(e.g. time, colleagues) connect once again with issues Characteristics of teachers willing to participate further
related to the broader research culture in the
Qualification Up to BA MA or more
institution; as noted earlier, the overall perception
3 8
of this by teachers was positive, and the belief
expressed here that most teachers do not do Experiencea 0–9 10–19 20+
2 6 2
research came from only 10% of the respondents
in this study. Nonetheless, these responses do add Read Research Often Sometimes Rarely
further weight to the view that the institutional 2 8 1
research culture is an important element to examine Do Research Often Sometimes Rarely
in our attempts to understand teachers’ research 2 7 2
engagement in ELT. a
One teacher did not provide this information.

Most of my colleagues do not do research.

I need someone to advise me but no one is available.

I am not interested in doing research.

My employer discourages it.

I do not have time to do research.

My job is to teach not to do research.

I do not know enough about research methods.

0 5 10 15 20
Frequency

Fig. 3. Reasons for not doing research.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Borg / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 731–747 743

4. Discussion Understanding the conceptions of research held

by teachers is important in attempts to engage them
The focal concern of this study was research with and in research. If, for example, large samples
engagement—the extent to which teachers read and and statistics are considered by teachers to be key
do research—and factors related to it. Almost 70% characteristics of research, then this may become a
said they read research at least sometimes and less viable activity for many teachers who either do
almost a third rarely; just over 61% said they did not have access to large samples or do not have the
research at least sometimes while over 38% said knowledge of statistics they feel is required. Alter-
they did so rarely or (in one case) never. Given the natively, the impact of such conceptions on teachers
absence of comparative data, I cannot comment on may be that they only consider a limited range of
how these figures relate to research engagement in approaches when they do decide to do research
our field more generally. This survey also does not themselves (e.g. discounting forms of inquiry which
shed light on what kinds of research activity are more qualitative in nature but which may
teachers engage in; this is one of several issues actually be more amenable to the kind of research
highlighted here which will be explored in more teachers are well-placed to conduct—see, for
depth in the subsequent interviews. example, Hopkins, 2002).
I will discuss the level of research engagement Evidence of teachers’ conceptions of research also
found here by considering two factors: teachers’ emerged here from their comments on their lack of
conceptions of research and the institutional re- research engagement. The responses suggest that
search culture. Experience and qualifications were several teachers feel that doing research is person-
examined in this study in relation to teachers’ ally and professionally beneficial and of value in
research engagement but did not emerge here as a enabling them to explore issues related to their own
significant factor. This is perhaps surprising, parti- teaching. This reflects the main reason cited by
cular in relation to qualifications, and suggests teachers for doing research in both Worrall (2004)
perhaps that it is not so much the qualification and Barker (2005). Amongst the reasons teachers
which matters here as much as the nature of the gave for not being research engaged, two reflect
‘research education’ (Borg, 2003a) which teachers views of the role and value of research in teachers’
have experienced (e.g. the kinds of courses on lives; one (‘my job is to teach not to do research’)
research they have done). It may be worthwhile to suggests that teaching and research are perceived as
collect information about this issue when the distinct activities and only the former is part of a
questionnaire is next administered. teacher’s work; the second (‘I am not interested in
doing research’), which was mentioned in the
4.1. Conceptions of research context of both not reading and not doing research,
may imply a lack of awareness of the professional
In this study, teachers’ conceptions of research and pedagogical benefits which research engage-
were predominantly associated with what has been ment might lead to. Such views were only reported
called a ‘standard’ view of scientific research (Robson, by a small proportion of the teachers, but they are
2002, p. 19). The scenario rated most highly as being indicative of the kinds of underlying assumptions
research was a large-scale survey conducted by an about research which may work against attempts to
academic, analysed statistically, and published in an enhance teachers’ research engagement. As noted
academic journal. The four characteristics of research earlier, Worrall (2004) also found evidence of such
seen to be most important in enhancing its quality personal dispositions in teachers who were not
related to objectivity, hypothesis testing, the control research engaged.
of variables, and the involvement of a large-scale Further insight into teachers’ conceptions of
sample. The tendency of teachers to associate research research comes from two further questions in the
with more conventional forms of inquiry is reflected survey; 9 teachers said they did not read research
in existing studies of this issue and which I reviewed because it does not give them practical advice
earlier in this paper (e.g. Brown, 1992; Shkedi, 1998). for the classroom; 34 teachers also said that a
The ‘standard’ view of research, on the basis of the characteristic of good-quality research is that it
available evidence, thus seems to remain the pre- gives teachers ideas they can use. These, again,
dominant model in the minds of teachers both are conceptions which recur in studies of tea-
generally and specifically in ELT. chers’ research engagement (e.g. McDonough &
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
744 S. Borg / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 731–747

McDonough, 1990; McNamara, 2002; Shkedi, 4.2. Institutional research culture

1998). Teachers are commonly found to report that
they are unable to see what published research The literature discussed earlier highlighted the
means for their classroom practice; more recent role which the institutional research culture may
evidence indicates that unless such relevance is have on teachers’ research engagement. In this
perceived by teachers they will not be willing to study, teachers’ responses to a set of questions
become research engaged: about their institution indicated that in many
respects it was seen to provide an environment
conducive to research engagement. Also, the more
Throughout this study, practitioners have stated
positively the institution was rated by teachers in
that whilst research is important to their work, it
this respect, the more frequently teachers reported
must be founded upon the intention to improve
both reading and doing research, and in both cases
the quality of their teaching and the learning of
these associations were significant.
their students. Where this link is not recognised,
In terms of specific items related to the institu-
then the findings of research may be ignored by
tional culture, although only just over half of the
them (Barker, 2005. p. 33).
teachers agreed that the management encouraged
teachers to do research and only 34% agreed that
Of course, the instrumental value to teachers of teachers feel that doing research is an important
educational research should not be presented as a part of their work, the key finding was that almost
necessary criterion for judging its value (Goldstein, 80% disagreed that time for research is built into
1998). However, it is clear that if our goal is to their workload. This view was also reflected in the
encourage teachers to engage with published re- comments of teachers who did not read and do
search, and that teachers consistently report that research; in both cases, a lack of time was the most
one reason they do not is because they are unable to commonly cited reason. Although it is easy to
see its relevance to their work, then this is clearly an dismiss this as an excuse which teachers make to
issue that merits attention. It has, though, not been explain their non-engagement in an activity they feel
the focus of any empirical work in our field, once they should do, there is growing evidence in
again, in contrast to work in education generally education generally that sustained and productive
(see, for example, Cordingley et al., 2005). We research engagement is not feasible unless the time it
thus lack insights into teachers’ perceptions of requires is acknowledged and built into institutional
published research in our field, whether this work systems (see, for example, Barker, 2005). In ELT, I
is seen by teachers to address their concerns, referred earlier to the study by Crookes and
and how it impacts on what happens in class- Arakaki (1999) which found that work pressures
rooms (in science education, Ratcliffe et al., 2004 were a key reason why the teachers in their
suggest this impact may be more indirect than institution did not read research. And in a personal
direct). These issues could very easily provide the communication to me on this subject, a teacher in
basis of a focused empirical study of their own, but North America wrote that:
in any case these are clearly matters to explore in
more depth in the follow-up interviews with the As a teacher–researcher I’ve found it extremely
teachers. difficult to carry out research projects and
Overall, what emerges here in relation to teachers’ publish. I just don’t have the time. I teach 32.5
conceptions of research suggests that initiatives to hours/week and need to prepare for those classes
further research engagement in this institution could in addition to work with the teachers’ union and
benefit from giving teachers on-going opportunities our technology committee. It’s a shame. Until
to discuss and clarify their understandings of what policy changes to permit teachers to do research
research is and how its worth can be judged, of the in their classrooms and publish results there
range of forms it may legitimately take, and of the won’t be much connection between research and
ways that research and classroom practice may practice except within the individual classroom.
interact in the lives of teachers. Teachers’ under- In my own context almost nobody reads TESOL
standings of these issues, I would argue, are central publications—they don’t have time. There is
to the extent to which they can be productively a huge gap between research and practice in
research engaged. the US.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Borg / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 731–747 745

Research engagement demands time and the under study and that, for a range of reasons, there
evidence is that teachers generally do not feel this may be a gap between actual and reported beliefs
time is available within their current allocations; the and practices. Well-designed instruments can mini-
consequence is that for many teachers research mise to some extent such problems (see, for
engagement becomes an activity they must do in example, the advice in Oppenheim, 1992), but
their own time. The results here suggest that even supplementing questionnaire data with in-depth
where the institution is generally seen to be interviews, as I plan to do, will allow the findings
supportive of teachers’ research engagement, time emerging here to be explored in more detail with a
may be a factor which carries more weight than sub-set of the original sample of teachers. Without
others in influencing the extent to which such implying that interviews are free of the dangers
engagement actually takes place. This suggests that associated with respondent bias which affect ques-
different conditions for research engagement carry tionnaires, the combination of questionnaire and
different weights and that time may be one of those interview data can provide a more complete and
that is particularly influential. The institutional convincing account of research engagement in ELT
conditions which facilitate research and the relative than reliance on questionnaire data alone would.
weightings of these is thus another specific issue The findings of this study highlight a number of
which emerges here as meriting further specific areas for continuing inquiry into the topic of
study. The work of Ebbutt (2001) is relevant to this teachers’ research engagement in ELT. I will
issue. He analysed the conditions which characterise continue to study these through my on-going
institutions in which a research culture was present programme of research, but if as a field ELT values
to different degrees (which he calls emergent, and wants to promote and support research
established, and established-embedded). ‘Invest- engagement by teachers more widely it is necessary
ment in time’ was one of the 19 criteria he considers for it to begin to generate the empirical evidence
and the presence of such investment was one of the which is required to inform initiatives of this kind.
ways in which schools where a research culture was The notion of teacher research is certainly not a new
more established differed from those where it was one in this field; what is new, however, is the
less so. This would seem to be an issue which the systematic study of the extent to which teachers
institution where the teachers in this study worked in ELT read and do research (particularly out-
would benefit from considering if it wanted to side the context of formal programmes of study)
enhance the levels of research engagement among and of the factors, personal to teachers as well as
its staff. institutional, which influence the extent to which
such research engagement occurs. Funders of
5. Conclusion educational research in the UK in the last decade
have invested significantly in programmes of re-
In concluding this paper there are two points to search which investigate these issues, and this had
highlight and which need to be considered in led to the development of a significant body of
interpreting its findings. Firstly, the ELT context evidence which can inform policy on matters
studied here is not being presented as typical of ELT pertaining to teachers’ research engagement; while
generally; it is my goal to study a range of contexts we need to acknowledge and draw on this work, the
as part of a larger programme of research, but this recognition by funders of ELT research of the
initial study allowed me to assess the feasibility of importance of a better understanding of research
the issues chosen for study and the instrument used engagement by teachers would seem to be funda-
to study them as well as to generate issues which mental to the development of a comparable
could be explored in more detail through follow-up evidence base in our field.
interviews. In these respects this work has I feel been
worthwhile. At the same time, the substantive
findings of this study are indicative of the potential References
that work of this kind has for exploring the nature
Aldridge, A., & Levine, K. (2001). Surveying the social world:
of research engagement in ELT. Second, question-
Principles and practice in survey research. Buckingham: Open
naire responses about conceptions and practices University Press.
must always be examined in the knowledge that they Barker, P. (2005). Research in schools and colleges. National
are respondents’ reported perceptions of the issues Educational Research Forum Working Paper 7.2. Retrieved
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
746 S. Borg / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 731–747

20 March 2006 from http://www.nerf-uk.org/word/WP7.2Re- Freeman, D. (1996). Redefining the relationship between research
searchinSchandCol.doc and what teachers know. In K. M. Bailey, & D. Nunan (Eds.),
Boaz, A. & Ashby, D. (2003). Fit for purpose? Assessing research Voices from the language classroom (pp. 88–115). New York:
quality for evidence based policy and practice. Retrieved 25 Cambridge University Press.
September 2004 from http://www.europeanevaluation.org/ Goldstein, H. (1998). Excellence in research on schools—a
docs/boaz.pdf commentary. Retrieved 16 July 2005, from http://www.
Borg, S. (2003a). ‘Research education’ as an objective for teacher mlwin.com/hgpersonal/excelres.pdf
learning. In B. Beaven, & S., Borg (Eds.), The role of research Gorard, S. (2001). Quantitative methods in educational research.
in teacher education (pp. 41–48). Whitstable, Kent: IATEFL. London: Continuum.
Borg, S. (2003b). Research in the lives of TESOL professionals. Hammersley, M. (2004). Some questions about evidence-based
TESOL Matters, 13, 1–5. practice in education. In G. Thomas, & R. Pring (Eds.),
Borg, S. (2003c). Teachers’ involvement in TESOL research. Evidence-based practice in education (pp. 133–149). Maiden-
TESOL Matters, 13, 1–8. head: Open University Press.
Brown, H. D., & Rodgers, T. S. (2002). Doing second language Handscomb, G., & Macbeath, J. (2003). The research engaged
research. Oxford: Oxford University Press. school. Retrieved 12 July 2005, from http://www.e-gfl.org/e-
Brown, J. D. (1992). What is research? TESOL Matters 2, 10. gfl/activities_uploaded/intranet/teacher/reschool.pdf
Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (2005). Quantitative data analysis with Hargreaves, D. (1996). Teachers, educational research and
SPSS 12 and 13. Routledge: London. evidence-based teaching. Education Review, 10, 46–50.
Burton, J. (1997). Sustaining language teachers as researchers of Hargreaves, D. (2001). Revitalising educational research: Past
their own practice. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, lessons and future prospects. In M. Fielding (Ed.), Taking
84–109. education really seriously: Four years’ hard labour (pp.
Burton, J. (1998). A cross-case analysis of teacher involvement in 197–208). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
TESOL research. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 419–446. Hemsley-Brown, J., & Sharp, C. (2003). The use of research to
Burton, J., & Mickan, P. (1993). Teachers’ classroom research: improve professional practice: A systematic review of the
Rhetoric and reality. In J. Edge, & K. Richards (Eds.), literature. Oxford Review Of Education, 29, 449–470.
Teachers develop teachers research (pp. 113–121). Oxford: Hopkins, D. (2002). A teachers’ guide to classroom research (3rd
Heinemann. ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods Markee, N. (1997). Second language acquisition research: A
in education (5th ed.). London: Routledge. resource for changing teachers’ professional cultures? Modern
Cordingley, P., Bell, M., Evans, D., & Holdich, K. (2005). Language Journal, 81, 80–93.
Engaging with research and evidence: What do teachers want Maxwell, J. A. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative research,
and are they getting it? A summary. Paper presented at the and scientific inquiry in education. Educational Researcher,
International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improve- 33, 3–11.
ment, Barcelona, 2–5 January 2005. McDonough, J., & McDonough, S. (1990). What’s the use of
Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and research? ELT Journal, 44, 102–109.
mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: McNamara, O. (2002). Evidence-based practice through practice-
Sage. based evidence. In O. McNamara (Ed.), Becoming an
Crookes, G., & Arakaki, L. (1999). Teaching idea sources and Evidence-Based Practitioner (pp. 15–26). London: Routledge-
work conditions in an ESL program. TESOL Journal, 8, Falmer.
15–19. Morrison, K. (2001). Randomised controlled trials for evidence-
Davies, P. (1999). What is evidence-based education? British based education: Some problems in judging ‘what works’.
Journal of Educational Studies, 47, 108–121. Evaluation and Research in Education, 15, 69–83.
Department of Education Training and Youth Affairs. (2000). Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning.
The impact of educational research. Canberra, Australia: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DETYA. Oppenheim, A. N. (1992). Questionnaire design, interviewing and
Dörnyei, Z. (2002). Questionnaires in second language research: attitude measurement (New ed.). London: Continuum.
Construction, administration and processing. New York: Ratcliffe, M., Bartholomew, H., Hames, V., Hind, A., Leach, J.,
Lawrence Erlbaum. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (2004). Science education practi-
Ebbutt, D. (2001). The development of a research culture in tioners’ views of research and its influence on their practice.
secondary schools. Educational Action Research, 10, 123–142. York: Department of Educational Studies, University of
Elliot, J. (2002). Making evidence-based practice educational. York.
British Educational Research Journal, 27, 555–574. Robson, C. (2002). Real world research (2nd ed.). Oxford:
Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition research and language Blackwell.
teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Salkind, N. J. (2004). Statistics for people who (think they) hate
Everton, T., Galton, M., & Pell, T. (2000). Teachers’ perspectives statistics (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
on educational research: Knowledge and context. Journal of Sharp, C., Eames, A., Sanders, D., & Tomlinson, K. (2005).
Education for Teaching, 26, 167–182. Postcards from research-engaged schools. Slough: NFER.
Everton, T., Galton, M., & Pell, T. (2002). Educational Shavelson, R. J., & Towne, L. (2002). Scientific research in
research and the teacher. Research Papers in Education, 17, education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
373–402. Shkedi, A. (1998). Teachers’ attitudes towards research: A
Fowler, F. J. (2002). Survey research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand challenge for qualitative researchers. International Journal of
Oaks: Sage. Qualitative Studies in Education, 11, 559–578.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Borg / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 731–747 747

Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and Tooley, J., & Darby, D. (1998). Educational research: A critique.
development. London: Heinemann. London: OFSTED Publications.
Thomas, G. (2004). Introduction: Evidence and practice. In G. Wiersma, W. (1991). Research methods in education: An
Thomas, & R. Pring (Eds.), Evidence-based Practice in introduction (5th ed.). Boston, London: Allyn and Bacon.
education (pp. 1–18). Maidenhead: Open University Press. Worrall, N. (2004). Trying to build a research culture in a school:
Thomas, G., & Pring, R. (Eds.). (2004). Evidence-based practice in Trying to find the right questions to ask. Teacher Develop-
education. Maidenhead: Open University Press. ment, 8, 137–148.