Project overview

The National Professional Enquiry Project (NPEP) was launched by the Welsh Government in collaboration with key stakeholders in September 2018 and is the embodiment of its vision for a teaching profession that is ‘research-engaged, well informed and learning from excellence at local, national and international levels’ (Welsh Government 2017, p. 11). This renewed focus on teacher professional learning (Milton et al. 2020) was to some extent inspired by Wales’ poor performance in successive Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) studies (see e.g. Rees and Taylor 2015, Reynolds 2016, Evans 2021) and a subsequent recommendation by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that schools should prioritise their application of enquiry and create stronger links with universities to help build a ‘thriving learning culture’ (OECD 2018, p. 15).

Initially involving three universities, all four regional education consortia (regional school improvement services, sitting at a local authority level) and 72 primary, secondary and special schools, the project has since expanded to incorporate all but one of Wales’ eight universities and more than 300 schools (roughly a fifth of all state schools in Wales, see Table 1). Fundamentally, the project exists to support participating ‘lead enquirers’ (individual teachers chosen by their schools to lead this work on their behalf) to develop confidence in their use of enquiry as a tool to improve teaching and learning. Schools receive additional funding, paid by the government via the regional consortia, for the equivalent of approximately 25 days of lead enquirers’ time and universities are remunerated according to the number of schools they support.

In practical terms, the project requires universities to work together and with their local regional representatives to provide bespoke professional support to the groups of schools allocated to them by the Welsh Government (which invited applications from interested parties). These collaborative arrangements have continued into the 2021–22 academic year (the fourth and latest phase of enquiry activity) and are structured to blend more formal professional learning on aspects of enquiry with more informal, one-to-one support delivered to schools on a needs basis. Skills workshops – providing e.g. introduction to research questions, research ethics and research methods – are delivered periodically (typically face-to-face, but more recently online owing to COVID-19) and furnished with virtual ‘drop-in’ sessions, emailed correspondence and web calls as enquiries develop. In line with similar collaborative approaches (see e.g. DeLuca et al. 2015, Wall and Hall 2017, Lambirth et al. 2019), participants are encouraged to undertake research relevant to their own context and record what they do using a standard template written and agreed by project leads.

Policy context

Based on the assumption that teachers will become ‘lifelong professional learners that reflect on and enhance their own practice’ (Welsh Government 2017, p. 25), NPEP acts as a catalyst for meaningful close-to-practice research and recognises that ‘teachers must go beyond becoming researchers by accident’ (Babkie and Provost 2004, p. 261). It forms part of the Welsh Government’s wider education reform agenda and is integral to the overarching National Approach to Professional Learning, which seeks to provide all teachers in Wales with access to high-quality and effective professional learning opportunities (Welsh Government 2018). Crucially, and by virtue of ministers’ commitment to building an education system based on trust and professionalism (OECD 2020), NPEP positions teachers as ‘critical figures in the research enterprise’ (Carr and Kemmis 1986, p. 40) and recognises that for teachers to become learners, ‘they must be self-developing’ (Easton 2008, p. 756). The implications arising from this positioning, which will be explored in greater detail later, are usefully summarised by Lieberman and Miller (2004, p. 11), who note that ‘when teachers cast off the mantle of technical and managed worker and assume new roles as researchers, meaning makers, scholars, and inventors, they expand the vision of who they are and what they do’.

There have however been previous attempts to embed enquiry into Wales’ professional learning offer. In the early 2000s, the then General Teaching Council for Wales (GTCW) set aside financial support for individual teachers to conduct action research relevant to their own settings (GTCW 2002, 2005), albeit that the reallocation of state funding to different priority areas limited its impact (Jones 2011). In contrast, NPEP represents a more concerted approach to professional enquiry that is, unlike earlier iterations, underpinned by a more collaborative and systematic model of delivery involving stakeholders from all three tiers of Wales' education infrastructure (see Table 2). It is, in effect, Wales’ attempt at ‘tri-level’ reform, described by Fullan (2009) as involving schools and their communities, districts or region, and the state.

Since its inception, NPEP has benefitted from sustained government funding and an ambition to develop a ‘research-driven culture’ in Wales that recognises the value of teachers ‘who are committed to continuous learning’ (Welsh Government 2017, p. 25). This is particularly relevant in the context of the forthcoming and purpose-led Curriculum for Wales (CfW), which involves the reorganising of discrete subjects into Areas of Learning and Experience, and the adoption of ‘big ideas’ and ‘what matters statements’ to drive learning objectives (Hughes and Lewis 2020, Power et al. 2020, Evans 2021). A ‘radical departure from the top-down, teacher proof policy of the previous National Curriculum’ (Sinnema et al. 2020, p. 181), CfW requires teachers in Wales to play a more prominent part in the shaping of what and how children learn. Writing in Successful Futures, which provided the blueprint for CfW, Graham Donaldson warned that ‘the implications for the formation and subsequent growth of teachers as reflective practitioners are considerable’ (Donaldson 2015, p. 71).

The enquiry model

Universities were allowed discretion as to how they presented enquiry to schools, and thus this section outlines a discrete emancipatory approach specific to the paper’s authors. In this case, the enquiry model centred around a simple ‘plan, do and review’ cycle, based on the identification of a problem, the implementation of a possible solution and a subsequent evaluation (McNiff and Whitehead 2005, Baumfield et al. 2012). Drawing from Altrichter et al’s (2008) ‘Circle of Action and Reflection’ and Kaser and Halbert’s (2013) ‘Spiral of Inquiry’, we framed enquiry as iterative and grounded in reflective practice, which was considered ‘to be central to the growth of teachers as enquirers who engage in collaborative research’ (Leitch and Day 2000, p. 182).

Our approach is one of a wide range of research practices derived from the concept of action research (Lewin 1948, Corey 1953, Bryant 1986, Carr and Kemmis 1986, McNiff 2002), which has at its core an intimate relationship between research and some form of practical or political activity (Hammersley 2004) that ascribes teachers an active role ‘in changing their knowledge bases, beliefs and practice’ (Bleicher 2014, p. 802). While the nomenclature may vary, there appears broad agreement that action research should be both systematic and intentional (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 2009), and thus properly targeted, and based on the premise of ‘learning by doing’ (Riley and Moltzen 2011, p. 25). Teachers were encouraged to adopt a critical stance towards their own practice (Boyd 2022) and focus on something pertinent to them, their settings and their learners; they would be supported in refining their enquiry foci by a university-based research mentor, but all decision-making would be devolved and wholly owned by the lead enquirers themselves (see Figure 1).

Towards a research-engaged teaching profession: insider reflections on a collaborative approach to developing teachers in Wales as professional enquirers

All authors

Gareth Evans, Sally Llewellyn & Jai Lewabe

https://doi.org/10.1080/25783858.2022.2109987

Published online:

10 August 2022

Figure 1. The five-step model of enquiry.

Display full size

The model was developed collaboratively and identifies five key steps to the enquiry process, with scaffolded reflection at every stage (see Figure 1). In Step 1, teachers are encouraged to identify a problem they wish to interrogate and thus formulate their enquiry question. Akin to what Poekert (2011, p. 24) describes as the ‘wondering stage’, this could be specific to a group of learners, a particular department or, in some cases, something affecting the whole school. The first scheduled reflection, ‘Reflect (read)’, invites enquirers to explore literature related to their area of interest. At Step 2, teachers are advised to collect baseline data (e.g. that collected pre-intervention) relevant to their chosen sample that will support them in gauging impact. The following tranche of reflection, ‘Reflect (plan)’, requires them to consider their initial data collection and use it to plan their subsequent intervention; it may be that the projected intervention is adjusted as a result of the data collection, and this particular reflection gives teachers the opportunity to tailor their planned action accordingly. This freedom to deviate from the course set in Step 1 respects what Noffke and Stevenson (1995, p. 2) consider the ‘non‐linear pattern’ of enquiry; indeed, schools were reassured throughout the course of NPEP that changes to enquiry structure were anticipated, and thus entirely normal, rather than something to be discouraged.

Step 3 represents the point at which practice actually changes and is what McNiff (2002, p. 7) describes as the ‘possible solution’ to the ‘problematic area’, which forms the basis of the enquiry itself. Having introduced their intervention, enquirers are then expected to reflect and prepare for Step 4, during which data is collected for a second time and impact gauged; typically, this impact relates to learner outcomes and/or experiences, but it can concern staff, parents or even the wider school community. Upon completion of Step 4, practitioners reflect and triangulate their data, if derived from various sources, so as to analyse and evaluate their findings in Step 5. This final step (and subsequent refinement) represents the end of the enquiry process, though its cyclical construct ensures a possible continuation of activity beyond data analysis.

A collaborative approach

According to King and Newmann (2001, p. 86), teacher learning is most likely to occur when teachers have ‘opportunities to collaborate with professional peers, both within and outside of their school, along with access to the expertise of external researchers and programme developers’. NPEP is an embodiment of this approach and, cognisant that this type of collaboration should ‘occur in environments characterised by both trust and challenge’ (Timperley 2008, p. 16), has provided a vehicle for the exploration of new possibilities without fear of judgment or commercial sensitivities inhibiting creativity. This last point is particularly true of universities which, in normal circumstances, would be competing against one another for students, staff and the award of contracts.

In the case of schools, lead enquirers have formed new professional relationships with regional consortia leads, university researchers and their counterparts in other participating schools. Opportunities to network have been both structured (through the creation of enquiry clusters by regional leads) and unstructured (via more organic, school-led contact), and resulted in the growth of enquiry communities that allow ‘time [for teachers] to develop, discuss and practice new knowledge’ (Opfer and Pedder 2011, p. 384). This combination of structured and unstructured co-operation between partners at all levels is necessarily time and labour-intensive (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1992, Baumann 1996, Currin 2019), but recognises that ‘effective school partnerships focus on constructive ways to produce collaboratively beneficial change by affirming members and stakeholders’ (Calabrese 2006, p. 173).

Creating the right conditions, and a non-threatening environment in which all parties are respectful of one another’s strengths and weaknesses, has been crucial to the short-term buy-in and longer-term sustainability of NPEP. For example, what university researchers lack in knowledge of the day-to-day challenges facing teachers, they make up for in experience of using enquiry tools, and vice-versa. Principally, by engaging in what Nelson et al. (2012, p. 25) call ‘dialogic negotiation’, and taking the time to understand each other’s ideas and values, we have as participants been able to overcome the perceived boundaries, or ‘turf issues’ (Hoover and Achilles 1996, p. 15), that separate our traditional working practices and move towards the development of what Hulme et al. (2009, p. 538) might describe as a ‘trans‐professional’ knowledge base.

It could be argued that the joining together of universities, regional consortia, schools and government has had a galvanising effect, with NPEP providing a platform for more meaningful collaboration and an interface for better communication between a diverse group of policy actors operating at micro (teacher/school), meso (regional consortia/university) and macro (government) levels. Bickel and Hattrup (1995, p. 37) note that sustained collaboration between teachers and researchers, in particular, is itself ‘a valuable mechanism’ for accessing and synthesising what each community knows about an issue.

Autoethnographic reflections

In this section of the paper, we present personal reflections based on our own first-hand involvement in the NPEP process. Recognising our proximity to project delivery, we assume the position of ‘insider’ (Brannick and Coghlan 2007, Mercer 2007), whose ‘privileged access’ (Merton 1972, p. 11) allows for a more vivid description ‘of the hermeneutics of everyday life’ (Trowler 2011, p. 2). This positionality is particularly pertinent given that insider research is typically undertaken within an organisation, group or community in which the researcher is also a member (Fleming 2018). As Smyth and Holian (2008, p. 34) attest, ‘researchers from within, particularly those undertaking action/practitioner research, are immersed, embedded and strongly connected with the researched in a shared setting, where they operate together on an ongoing basis’.

We use autoethnography as a means of empowering each ‘insider’ to describe their lived experience, from the perspective of a lead enquirer, university researcher and regional facilitator. Grounded in narrative inquiry, autoethnography ‘portrays and analyzes personal autobiographical narratives as a means of discerning one’s cultural experience’ (Malin and Hackmann 2016, p. 162). It provides a mechanism for those involved to ‘communicate personal experiences and dialogues regarding oneself or one’s interaction with others’ (Gurvitch et al. 2008, p. 249) and operates in the postmodern sphere, which privileges the participant’s voice and valorises his or her subjective experience (Schmid 2019). It was on this basis that we considered autoethnography, read through lived field experiences, an appropriate approach to data collection and ‘a powerful means of connecting personal experience to systemic social interactions’ (Besio 2020, p. 243).

Fundamentally, we respect that ‘every view is a way of seeing, not the way’ (Wolcott 1999, p. 137, italics in original) and for the paper to achieve authenticity, it must empower representatives of all key stakeholders to tell their own stories. Recognising autoethnography as a ‘narrative of self’ (Sparkes 2000, p. 21), we hope to have conveyed a ‘patchwork of feelings, experiences, emotions, and behaviours’ (Muncey 2005, p. 10) by holding ‘a critical mirror’ to what we did and why we did it (Megford 2006, p. 859). This does not mean, however, that the accounts presented here are necessarily reflective of the wider NPEP community and are based only on our own recollections of real-life events; instead, readers are afforded the opportunity to ‘enter the subjective world of the teller – to see the world from her or his point of view’ (Plummer 2001, p. 401). It is our hope that, in time, this brief compilation of experiences will ‘become part of a broader orchestra of telling’ (Schmid 2019, p. 268) that encourages others involved in collaborative enquiry to reflect publicly on their experiences for the benefit of others.

Autoethnographic reflections are presented as short written evaluations. These were loosely structured around key areas of interest (e.g. ‘what worked well/less well’; ‘in what forms was collaboration manifested?’; ‘how has your involvement in the project influenced practice?’) that were considered to be of most value to practitioners in other settings. In the interests of time and recognising that NPEP remains an ongoing endeavour, our ‘selective approach’ (Harding 2019, p. 35) to data collection ensured that contributions were focussed and aligned to the paper’s aims and objectives. The net result is what Chang (2013, p. 110) describes as ‘a running list of compelling experiences, professional curiosities, nagging issues, and intense emotions’. These were shared honestly and in good faith, acknowledging the myriad ethical challenges associated with autoethnographic study (Tullis 2013). One such challenge relates to respecting the rights of others, who retain a presence in self-narratives, either as active participants or background associates (Chang 2008). Thus care has been taken to avoid the identification of third parties and the potential for ‘relational concerns’ (Ellis 2007, p. 25) has been mitigated by the redaction of all data relating to smaller groups.

Authors were required to confirm their ‘process consent’ (Ellis 2007, p. 23) before participating in the study and reminded of their ‘personal and communal responsibility’ to reflect truthfully on their experiences, without implicating other participants in the NPEP process (Denzin 2003, p. 249). Mindful of the risk to autoethnographers ‘of leaning toward self-indulgence, superficiality, and sensationalism’ (Lapadat 2017, p. 593), we opened to scrutiny each individual contribution and discussed together whether our respective views constituted a fair representation of reality. Senior representatives of all key stakeholders were made aware of the research and were supportive of its publication. The resulting accounts, labelled A1-A3, are presented in full below.

Discussion

Respecting that each of the reflections presented in this paper is drawn from its own unique experience, there are nevertheless some noticeable similarities between contributions. First, and notwithstanding the project’s collaborative ethos, there is a clear consensus that the process of professional enquiry should be led firmly by teachers. This is evidenced in the description of enquiry, by a regional facilitator, as ‘a means of empowering them (lead enquirers) to make local decisions for the benefit of their own learners’ (A1). The want of university researchers to ‘normalise educational research and ground it more easily in teachers’ day-to-day practice’ (A3) appears to correlate with the conceptualisation of enquiry as ‘not a bolt-on or inconvenience, but something that drives reflection and keeps practice under constant review’ (A2). However, our findings also highlight tensions inherent in a project of this type, e.g. a project that involves representatives from a range of backgrounds working collaboratively.

In some respects, the bringing together of professionals from regional consortia, universities and schools was essential, in that it opened up new lines of communication and allowed participants to collaborate with people with whom they had never before come into contact. Nevertheless, that we each joined the project from different places, and with different skillsets, did lead to some initial confusion over who was responsible for what. Take, for example, the misconception that together regional facilitators and university researchers would ‘lead learning’ and ‘provide teachers with answers’ (A1) to their enquiry questions. This appears to have stemmed, at least in part, from teachers’ pre-conceived perception of research as ‘not something practising teachers had to do’ (A2) and ‘something you would be more likely to do whilst training or during your formative years in the profession’ (A2). From our experience, we consider this to be representative of the views of a much wider group of people, and a fallacy that project leads have had to work hard to dispel.

Of course, there is a key distinction here between the leading of school-based enquiries and leading of the project more generally. For whilst it is imperative that teachers are given the freedom ‘to find workable solutions to their own problems’ (A3), and thus enquire into activity that is of most interest to them and their learners, so too is it important that the project benefits from effective strategic direction. Indeed, the ‘contractual obligation’ (A3) of participants to fulfil targets set by government is a useful reminder of the duties flowing from a state-led initiative, that is publicly-funded and awarded via tender. While none of the contributors to this paper benefitted directly from the financial support awarded to NPEP, it is impossible to divorce ourselves completely from it given the very tangible difference additional resource has made.

Previous studies have shown that ‘money buys time’ and creates the space for teachers to reflect, plan and gain new knowledge (Aubusson et al. 2005, p. 21). This particular project is no different, and NPEP has been almost solely reliant on the long-term commitment of the Welsh Government to growing a culture of enquiry in Wales’ schools. Without it, teachers would have been unable to guarantee the time necessary to engage in reflective practice and the more labour-intensive aspects of their enquiry journeys. However, the suggestion that ‘lead enquirers are never completely free to develop their enquiries in a way befitting of their own needs’ (A3) is somewhat unsettling in this context, in that it opens to question the authenticity of a research culture that is subsidised by government, or whether a legitimate state-funded research culture can exist at all. There are certainly some performative connotations associated with the expectation that teachers complete a standardised reporting template within a pre-determined timetable.

With that in mind and despite it having engaged hundreds of teachers across Wales, we acknowledge that the extent to which NPEP can be considered a truly national project is at this point highly questionable. Notwithstanding a steady scaling-up of participants (from 72 schools in 2018–19 to 300 schools in 2021–22), NPEP still currently involves only a fifth of all state schools in Wales, meaning that the vast majority are as yet untouched by the project’s reach. NPEP’s impact at a system-level is further challenged by its design model, which requires individual lead practitioners to drive enquiry in their own settings. This in itself is problematic, as with no clear and universal instruction to schools that practitioners should be routinely sharing their experiences with colleagues (either internally or externally), attempts to circulate what has been learnt for wider benefit has been left largely to chance. And therein lies a significant challenge for NPEP moving forward; for if Wales is genuinely committed to developing a research-engaged teaching profession (Welsh Government 2017), then it must work to build on what has been achieved since 2018 and ensure that every school in every part of the country has access to the same level of opportunity. A long-term sustainable funding model, and exploration of how best to cascade prior learning throughout the system, will be essential in delivering on that aim.

Conclusion: guiding principles

We conclude this paper by acknowledging that our close association with NPEP and, in some cases, input into its strategic direction, could have resulted in a more optimistic account of its development than might otherwise be suggested. Furthermore, it is important that our autoethnographic contributions are taken in the way in which they were intended; as early reflections on an ongoing project that will, in all likelihood, be subject to more extensive evaluation as it draws towards a more natural cessation. Nevertheless, we believe that the parallels between the accounts provided gives weight to their validity, and justifies our approach to capturing the views of those closest to project delivery.

In her four-phase reflective cycle, Rodgers (2002, p. 231) presents a framework for extended enquiry ‘that slows down teachers’ thinking processes and asks them to observe carefully and describe in detail – as an artist might – selected situations within the classroom’. The model of enquiry presented in this paper comes from the same stable, in that it recognises the need for teachers to step back from the hustle and bustle of their daily routines to better understand what it is happening around them; to consider the things that could be enhanced or developed to facilitate improved learner outcomes. This thinking has been fundamental to our collaborative approach, and reflects what we believe should be benefits to both the pupil and the teacher arising from this form of reflective practice. These enhanced learning opportunities are not, however, restricted to those directly engaged in the process of enquiry, and creating a forum for mutual learning – involving all key delivery partners – is in our view integral to the building of research capacity in this way.

Drawing on our own collective experiences, we offer the following five principles as providing a bedrock for this forum of mutual learning and the basis for a fruitful collaborative approach to developing teachers as professional enquirers:

• Foundational skills development – before they begin, teachers need to know how to conduct their enquiries. As such, we consider a grounding in key foundational skills essential to any co-ordinated capacity-building across an education system;

• Stakeholder coherence – the carefully planned interaction of different stakeholders, operating at different levels of the system, has a unifying effect and makes best use of the range of expertise available. Collaborating in this way respects the interconnectivity that exists in education and requires that those involved coalesce around a common goal;

• Dedicated time – teachers must be given the time and space necessary to engage properly in this important work. This is largely dependent on strong leaders respecting teachers’ learning journeys and planning for the release of their enquiring staff from timetabled duties;

• Professional autonomy – facilitators should resist the temptation to take direction of individual school-based enquiries. Teachers should be encouraged to take ownership of their enquiries and other external parties should support, rather than steer. This is an important distinction and one of which university researchers, in particular, should be most conscious;

• Shared vulnerability – the fifth and final principle is primarily attitudinal, and relates to the readiness of practitioners at all levels to engage in new professional practices. Fundamentally, teachers, researchers and facilitators must invest fully in the learning process, recognising that in so doing, they commit to ‘shared vulnerability’ (Corkery et al. 2015) and ‘exposure of the self in the presence of others’ (Pignatelli 2011, p. 221).

Together, these guiding principles should be considered the cornerstone of a collaborative and emancipatory approach to professional enquiry; an approach that encourages participants, as leaders of learning, to ‘ignore traditional boundaries and move freely across communities of practice’ (Collinson 2012, p. 264).