Abstract
School–university research networks aim at closer integration of research and practice by means of teacher research. Such practice-oriented research can benefit both schools and universities. This paper reports on a multiple-case study of five participants in a school–university research network in a Dutch master’s program. The research question was: In what way is knowledge based on practice-oriented research by master’s students developed, shared, and used in school–university research networks in which education is primarily offered within a university setting? Twenty interviews were conducted, on the basis of logs, over a period of 10 months. Results show that (1) for master’s students, the most significant motive for developing, sharing or using knowledge was that the content knowledge about their research topic could be useful to school practice and colleagues; (2) research supervisors reported more than master’s students about the procedural knowledge that they had developed and shared. This knowledge focused on the collaborative process of supporting research and knowledge processes in school and university; (3) activities of knowledge sharing and use appeared to depend to a significant extent on individual purposes and leadership initiatives of master’s students and their supervisors; and (4) in the school–university research network, master’s students and research supervisors continued—to a limited extent—knowledge processes based on master’s students research after their graduation. Outcomes indicate that use of existing network structures in master’s programs is complex, but could be a promising avenue for creating successful school–university research networks.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allen, J. M., Butler-Maden, C., & Smith, R. A. (2010). A fundamental partnership: the experiences of practising teachers as lecturers in a pre-service teacher education programme. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 16(5), 615–632.
Anderson, G. L., & Herr, K. (1999). The new paradigm wars: Is there room for rigorous practitioner knowledge in schools and universities? Educational Researcher, 28(5), 12–40.
Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in Teaching and Teacher Education over ten years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 10–20.
Baker-Doyle, K. (2011). The networked teachers: How new teachers build social networks for professional support. New York/London: Teachers College Press.
Barringer, B. R., & Harrison, J. S. (2000). Walking a tightrope: Creating value through inter-organizational relationships. Journal of Management, 26(3), 367–403.
Baumfield, V., & Butterworth, M. (2007). Creating and translating knowledge about teaching and learning in collaborative school-university research partnerships: An analysis of what is exchanged across the partnerships, by whom and how. Teachers and Teaching, 13(4), 411–427.
Baumfield, V., & McLaughlin, C. (2006). Bridging and bonding: Perspectives on the role of the university in SUPER. In C. McLaughlin, K. Black-Hawkins, S. Brindley, D. McIntyre, & K. S. Taber (Eds.), Researching schools: Stories from a school-university partnership for educational research (pp. 132–146). London/New York: Routledge.
Berg, K. F. (2004). Beginning a new partnership: Professional development school—Master of education in teaching style. Journal of In-service Education, 30(3), 429–442.
Borgatti, S. P., & Cross, R. (2003). A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks. Management Science, 49(4), 432–445.
Burton, S. L., & Greher, G. R. (2007). School-university partnerships: What do we know and why do they matter? Arts Education Policy Review, 109(1), 13–24.
Butterfield, L. D., Borgen, W. A., Amundson, N. E., & Maglio, A. T. (2005). Fifty years of the critical incident technique: 1954–2004 and beyond. Qualitative Research, 5(4), 475–497.
Caillier, S. L., & Riordan, R. C. (2009). Teacher education for the schools we need. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 489–496.
Cenic, M. (2010). Partnerships between a faculty and schools for encouraging the teacher as researcher: a case study from Slovenia. In D. K. Sharpes (Ed.), Handbook on international studies in education (pp. 155–166). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Church, M. (2006). Knots and threads: The power of networks. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.
Cobb, P., McClain, K., & de Silva Lamberg, T. (2003). Situating teachers’ instructional practices in the institutional setting of the school district. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 13–24.
Coburn, C. E., & Russel, J. L. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 203–235.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1998). Teacher research: the question that persists. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 1(1), 19–36.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). The teacher researcher movement: A decade later. Educational Researcher, 28(7), 15–25.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. M. (2005). Final report from the panel on research on teacher education. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Cornelissen, F., Swet, J., van, 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(1), 147–156.
Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.). (2005). Professional development schools. Schools for developing a profession. New York: Teachers College Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 35–47.
de Lima, J. A. (2010). Thinking more deeply about networks in education. Journal of Educational Change, 11(1), 1–21.
Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R.-L. (Eds.). (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Hargreaves, D.H. (1999). The knowledge creating school. British Journal of Educational Studies, 47(2), 122–144.
Katz, S., & Earl, L. (2007). Creating new knowledge: Evaluating networked learning communities. Education Canada, 47(1), 34–37.
Kilduff, M., & Tsai, W. (2003). Social networks and organizations. London, UK: Sage Publications.
Krokfors, L., Kynäslahti, H., Stenberg, K., Toom, A., Maaranen, K., Jyrhämä, R., et al. (2011). Investigating Finnish teacher educators’ views on research-based teacher education. Teaching Education, 22(1), 1–13.
LePage, P., Boudreau, S., Maier, S., Robinson, J., & Cox, H. (2001). Exploring the complexities of the relationship between K-12 and college faculty in a nontraditional professional development program. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(2), 195–211.
Martin, S. D., Snow, J. L., & Franklin Torrez, C. A. (2011). Navigating the terrain of third space: tensions with/in relationships in school-university partnerships. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(3), 299–311.
McCormick, R., Fox, A., Carmichael, P., & Procter, R. (2010). Researching and understanding educational networks. London/New York: Routledge.
McIntyre, D. (2005). Bridging the gap between research and practice. Cambridge Journal of Education, 35(3), 357–382.
McLaughlin, C., & Black Hawkins, K. (2004). A school-university research partnership: Understandings, models and complexities. Journal of In-service Education, 30(2), 265–283.
McLaughlin, C., & Black Hawkins, K. (2007). School-university partnerships for educational research: Distinctions, dilemmas and challenges. Curriculum Journal, 18(3), 327–341.
McLaughlin, C., Black Hawkins, K., Brindley, S., McIntyre, D., & Taber, K. S. (2006). Researching schools: Stories from a school-university partnership for educational research. London/New York: Routledge.
McLaughlin, C., Black Hawkins, K., McIntyre, D., & Townsend, A. (2008). Networking practioner research. London/New York: Routledge.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Moolenaar, N. M., Daly, A. J., & Sleegers, P. J. C. (2011). Ties with potential: Social network structure and innovation in Dutch schools. Teachers College Record, 113(9), 1983–2017.
Moon, B., Vlasceanu, L., & Barrows, L. C. (2003). Institutional approaches to teacher education within higher education in Europe: Current models and new developments. Bucharest: UNESCO. Retrieved August 30 2010 from: http://www.cepes.ro/publications/pdf/teacher.pdf.
Muijs, D., & Harris, A. (2006). Teacher led school improvement: Teacher leadership in the UK. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(8), 961–972.
Nardi, B. A., Whittaker, S., & Schwartz, H. (2002). NetWORKers and their activity in intensional networks. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 11, 205–242.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2004). Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers: Update of country background report for the United States. Retrieved February 22 2010 from: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/52/33947533.pdf.
Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative knowledge communities and three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 557–576.
Peters, J. (2002). University-school collaboration: Identifying faulty assumptions. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 30(3), 229–242.
Pijl, S. J. (2010). Preparing teachers for inclusive education: Some reflections from the Netherlands. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10(1), 197–201.
Plickert, G., Côté, R. R., & Wellman, B. (2007). It’s not who you know, it’s how you know them: Who exchanges what with whom? Social Networks, 29, 405–429.
Rust, F. (2009). Teacher research and the problem of practice. Teacher College Records, 111(8), 1882–1893.
Rust, F., & Meyers, E. (2006). The bright side: Teacher research in the context of educational reform and policy-making. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 12(1), 69–86.
Sachs, J., & Groundwater Smith, S. (1999). The changing landscape of teacher education in Australia. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 215–227.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
Shosh, J. M., & Zales, C. R. (2007). Graduate teacher education as inquiry: A case study. Teaching Education, 18(2), 257–275.
Slater, J. J., & Ravid, R. (Eds.). (2010). Collaboration in education. New York: Routledge.
Smedley, L. (2001). Impediments to partnership: A literature review of school-university links. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 7(2), 189–209.
Smeets, K., & Ponte, P. (2009). Action research and teacher leadership. Professional Development in Education, 35(2), 175–193.
Tom, A. R. (1999). How professional development schools can destabilize the work of university faculty. Peabody Journal of Education, 74(3/4), 277–284.
Tynjälä, P. (2008). Perspectives into learning on the workplace. Educational Research Review, 3, 130–154.
van Swet, J., & Ponte, P. (2007). Reciprocal learning by experienced teachers and their educators on a Master’s degree programme in the Netherlands. Journal of In-service Education, 33(1), 67–90.
van Swet, J., Ponte, P., & Smit, B. (Eds.). (2007). Postgraduate programmes as platform: A research-led approach. Rotterdam/Taipei: Sense Publishers.
Veugelers, W., & O’Hair, M. J. (2005). Network learning for educational change. Berkshire: Open University Press.
Vogrinc, J., & Valenčič Zuljan, M. (2009). Action research in schools: An important factor in teachers’ professional development. Educational Studies, 35(1), 53–63.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Zeichner, K. (2003). Teacher research as professional development P-12 educators in the USA. Educational Action Research, 11(2), 301–325.
Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 89–99.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1
Description | |
|---|---|
Members | |
1. Nature of knowledge | Kinds of knowledge developed, shared or used by network members as a result of research by Master’s students. Such knowledge can have explicit forms,, which are relatively easy to articulate, or implicit/tacit forms which are more bound to the person and harder to express |
2. Activities | Kinds of activities (planned or unplanned) in which knowledge based on research by Master’s students is developed, shared or used by network members. Such activities can be individual (e.g. personal writing, reflection) or can involve others (e.g. doing things together) |
3. Cognitions | Kinds of thoughts and considerations before/during/after developing, sharing or using knowledge based on research by Master’s students (e.g. thoughts on the usefulness of knowledge or the feasibility of sharing knowledge) |
4. Meta-cognitions | Kinds of thoughts and considerations before/during/after developing, sharing or using knowledge based on research by Master’s students, which refer to the regulation of these knowledge processes (e.g. evaluating, monitoring, planning) |
5. Emotions | Kinds of feelings before/during/after developing, sharing or using knowledge based on research by Master’s students. Such emotions can be positive (e.g. enthusiastic, satisfied) or negative (e.g. anxious, disappointed) |
Relationships | |
6. Trust | The belief of network members that the other person is benevolent, reliable, competent, open and honest when knowledge is developed, shared or used as a result of research by Master’s students |
7. Power | The influence on behavior, cognitions and activities of other network members when knowledge is developed, shared or used as a result of research by Master’s students |
8. Engagement | The willingness of persons to engage with other network members when knowledge is developed, shared or used as a result of research by Master’s students. Such engagement can be active (supporting other people by interactively participating in an activity) or passive (trying to understand or support other people by listening or giving advice during an activity) |
9. Expertise | Knowing what other network members know when knowledge is developed, shared or used as a result of research by Master’s students |
Context of events | |
10. Purpose | The kind of purpose which is stated for (planned or unplanned) events in which knowledge is developed, shared or used as a result of research by Master’s students. Such purpose refers to individual as well as collective purposes, and focuses on improvement of practice in classrooms, schools or the wider network |
11. Collaboration | The way network members are involved in collaborating during (planned or unplanned) events in which knowledge is developed, shared or used as a result of research by Master’s students. Such collaboration involves informal storytelling; giving each other support/advice; sharing methods, materials and ideas; or joint work for which members share responsibility |
12. Inquiry | The way the systematic inquiry and research process takes place in the context of (planned or unplanned) events in which knowledge is developed, shared or used a result of research by Master’s students. This involves the kind of research approach, methods and instruments that are used |
13. Leadership | The way network members are involved in leading (planned or unplanned) events in which knowledge is developed, shared or used a result of research by Master’s students. Leadership in such events can be formal (e.g. by a manager) or distributed (e.g. by teachers) |
14. Accountability | The way developing, sharing or using knowledge based on research by Master’s students is used during events to account for developments in the school. Such events can be used to show the public outside school what you are doing and how well it is working, or it can be used to establish improvement plans and to monitor progress inside school |
15. Capacity | The way events are supported and conditions, opportunities and experiences are used to develop, share or use knowledge based on research by Master’s students. Such capacity can be built by promoting and supporting professional development or providing the necessary resources |
Appendix 2
Aspects | Knowledge developing | Knowledge sharing | Knowledge using |
|---|---|---|---|
Members | |||
Nature of knowledge | Kinds of knowledge | Kinds of knowledge | Kinds of knowledge |
Embrained—reflecting on literature, research activities & own practice | Embrained—sharing personal insights from literature & research activities | Embrained—using insights she gained from reading literature in her practice | |
Procedural—gaining insights about research methods | Procedural—sharing experiences with doing research | ||
Encoded—sharing a book & model | |||
Activities | Kinds of activities | Kinds of activities | Kinds of activities |
Getting ideas from others—for: conducting research, developing knowledge useful to practice, talking to people who could support her | Talking—about research outcomes and research insights relevant to practice. | Acting—in her daily work practice to support her colleagues and one of her student’s parents | |
Experimenting—she engages in systematical and unsystematical experiments with new activities (in relation to study) in her classroom | Presenting—together with school presenting a book about their research experiences | Developing—a scheme to support a student’s parents in helping their child | |
Reflecting—on implications for her own classroom practice in relation to insights from her study | Writing—chapter in book about her literature study | ||
Doing things together—sharing insights from her study with team teacher + assistants when experimenting with teaching in their classroom | |||
Cognitions | Thoughts referring to | Thoughts referring to | Thoughts referring to |
Usefulness—for improving practice in school. She appreciated it when people confirmed usefulness for their practice | Usefulness—for practice (e.g. contribution to school curriculum) or certain people (e.g. teacher with similar problem) | Usefulness—for practice so it would contribute to teaching and her students’ development | |
Feasibility—of developing knowledge in her research, e.g. by involving ‘critical friends’ within school in her study | Stimulation—through: friendly & competent support research supervisor; interest & engagement of colleagues with her research; collaborating with colleagues with similar vision | Feasibility—she considered how she could use her insights and if her colleagues would accept it | |
Stimulation—of her research process in which she developed knowledge, e.g. when others pay interest to and give advice on her study | Opportunities—that knowledge sharing provides for collaboration with others around research topic | ||
Connectivity—connection of developed knowledge to other people’s knowledge, practice, views | |||
Metacognition | Thoughts referring to | Thoughts referring to | Thoughts referring to |
Evaluating—process and outcomes of knowledge developing | Evaluating—moments of knowledge sharing and noticing that: she also was getting more in return (advice, info); she got to know people with whom she shared better; people were coming back for more | Planning—she was considering ways she could plan the use of her knowledge. One way was by strategically involving other people in her research (creating partners/allies) to convince them of the importance to use her (future) research outcomes | |
Planning—moment of knowledge development, e.g. interviews | Planning—activities to share her insights in a team meeting | ||
Predicting—process and outcomes of knowledge developing, e.g. outcomes of interviews | |||
Enhancing quality—by involving (perspectives of) other members in research activities | |||
Emotions | Kinds of emotions | Kinds of emotions | Kinds of emotions |
Positive—enthusiasm when people showed interest and confirmed relevance of study; glad when people gave information and advice relevant to conducting her study | Positive—enthusiasm when sharing her insights and being able to explain her ideas. Satisfied when she could support others with advice and people confirmed that her insights were useful to practice in school. Proud when her manager presented the book she wrote a chapter for. Secure/comfortable when sharing insights with research supervisor | Positive—enthusiasm when she used knowledge and noticed that it was of benefit to others. Confidence when she noticed that she could use her knowledge in her practice | |
Negative—doubting importance & relevance of her study | Negative—feeling insecure about research and relevance of research topic to school practice | ||
Relationships | |||
Trust | Developing knowledge with ‘inner circle’ of trustees: a buddy from another team; management member which was fellow Master’s student; gymnastics teacher; colleagues from room for smokers; team teacher + teacher assistants | Trust enabled her to share her insights open and honestly, with: interested colleagues in room for smokers; her research supervisor; colleagues from day-care | Trustful relationships with colleagues from day-care made her feel safe enough to use insights from her study for collaboratively developing a plan for one of her students |
Power | Kinds of power | ||
Formal—management member provided inside information helpful to her research | Not referred to | Not referred to | |
Informal—she determined agenda items for team meeting, and convinced her team teacher + teacher assistants to join her in experiments | |||
Engagement | Kinds of engagement | Kinds of engagement | Kinds of engagement |
Active—people were participating in research activities, like studying & improving practice, which created awareness and ownership of the research subject among them | Passive—colleagues by listening to her insights and experiences; research supervisor by giving advice on writing about her research; management member by giving advice whom she should talk to about her research | Active—Other network members showed active engagement when they could use the research insights to improve their own practice and it was of benefit to their students | |
Passive—people supported her by listening and giving advice with respect to her research process | Passive—she used insights from her study to give advice to other people and supported them in using these insights too | ||
Expertise | When she got to know other’s expertise & its value to her research she tried to involve them. E.g. expertise of: teaching practice, research methods, research topic | Through sharing other people got to know the Master’s student’s expertise and in return they became interested and started sharing their expertise and experiences with the Master’s student | Gymnastics teacher realized that the Master’s student’s expertise could benefit his practice and he decided to use the insights from her study in his teaching |
Context event | |||
Purpose | Kinds of purpose | Kinds of purpose | Kinds of purpose |
Individual—aiming for improving her classroom practice and for involving others in her research to enhance buy-inn for the relevance of her research topic | Collective—she shared her research insights and together with colleagues she formulated collective goals for improving practice in her own classroom and the whole school with respect to her research subject | Individual—purpose referred to using insights she considered important for improving the education for her students | |
Collective—thinking how she could contribute with her research to collective purposes of school and formulating a collective purpose with a colleague with respect to student support in their classrooms | Collective—purpose referred to using insights together with partner teacher + assistants for improving the education for her students | ||
Collaboration | Collaborating through | Collaborating through | Collaborating through |
Storytelling—quick exchange of experiences from her research with buddy of another team and colleagues in smokers’ room | Storytelling—exchanging insights from her research with colleagues in smokers’ room | Giving aid/advice—during conversation with parent, based on insights she gained from reading literature | |
Giving aid/advice—by gymnastics teacher, teacher colleague & management member on: topics & methods for research & people important to involve in her research | Giving aid/advice—about doing research, writing about research, coping with issues in practice, whom she should talk to about her research | Sharing materials/ideas—with colleagues and parents for support of their students/children | |
Sharing materials/ideas—for teaching and research with: gym. teacher, colleague from smoker’s room, partner teacher + assistants | Sharing materials/ideas—sharing ideas, opinions, insights with gymnastics teacher and sharing a scheme and insights from her research with a teacher from another team | Joint work—she uses insights when making a plan for one of her students together with colleagues from day-care | |
Joint work—when developing questionnaire with colleague; conducting questionnaire and research experiments with partner teacher + assistants | |||
Inquiry | Literature study | Not referred to | Not referred to |
Designing questionnaire and interviews | |||
Testing and conducting interviews | |||
Leadership | Kinds of leadership | Kinds of leadership | Kinds of leadership |
Formal—Management member (fellow Master’s student), supported her by sharing information important to her research and directing her to people important to her research | Formal—she appreciated compliments of the school manager on her contribution about her research to the book. She noticed that she did not share her insights with management members which were not so much present in her work practice | Distributed—by using insights from her research she could take the lead in making improvement plans for classroom practice together with her partner teacher and internal coach (Senco) | |
Distributed—Master’s student took the lead in creating own network of ‘critical friends’ in school and she led small classroom experiments that she conducted with team teacher + assistants for her research | Distributed—she decided to share together with her partner teacher and assistants outcomes of their research experiments at a school’s study afternoon | ||
Accountability | Kinds of accountability | Kinds of accountability | Kinds of accountability |
External—together with colleague she was considering ways to develop knowledge which would enable school to account for learning outcomes for school inspection | Internal—sharing insights from her research at a school’s study afternoon to stimulate other colleagues in school to improve there education with respect to her research topic too | Internal—insights were used to establish improvement plans for her own teaching practice and the gymnastics teacher used her research insights to make improvement plans for his practice | |
Internal—together with colleague she was thinking ways to improve education to support their students | |||
Capacity | Building capacity through | Building capacity through | Not referred to |
Supporting professional development—inquiry group and research supervisor in the Master’s program. She also tried to support professional development of colleagues by involving them in research activities | Supporting professional development—when research supervisor supported her in writing a book chapter about her literature study | ||
Providing resources—when school regularly organizes study afternoons for sharing insights & experiences | |||
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cornelissen, F., van Swet, J., Beijaard, D. et al. Exploring knowledge processes based on teacher research in a school–university research network of a master’s program. J Educ Change 14, 139–176 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-012-9200-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-012-9200-7