Content uploaded by Constanze Saunders
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Constanze Saunders on Sep 20, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Constanze Saunders
Research-Based Learning in Teacher
Education at Humboldt-Universität
zu Berlin
Working Paper der AG Forschendes Lernen
in der dghd
dghd
Deutsche Gesellschaft
für Hochschuldidaktik
Diese Working Paper Reihe ist ein Produkt der AG Forschendes Lernen in der Deutschen Gesellschaft für
Hochschuldidaktik (dghd). Sie erscheint als Online-Publikation an der Carl von Ossietzky Universität Olden-
burg und richtet sich an alle, die an Forschendem Lernen interessiert sind. Veröffentlicht werden wissen-
schaftliche und praxisnahe Beiträge zum Forschenden Lernen. Die Autor_innen müssen nicht Mitglied der
AG Forschendes Lernen sein. Veröffentlichungen sind in deutscher und englischer Sprache möglich. Alle
eingereichten Beiträge durchlaufen einen Begutachtungsprozess.
Herausgeber_innenteam:
Wolfgang Deicke*
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
Dr. Susanne Haberstroh
Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg
Dr. Kerrin Riewerts*
Universität Bielefeld
Dr. Janina Thiem
Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg
Susanne Wimmelmann*
Georg-August-Universität Göttingen
*Sprecher_in der AG Forschendes Lernen in der dghd
Redaktion und Kontakt: Dr. Janina Thiem (fl-workingpaper@uol.de).
Das Herausgeber_innen-Team bedankt sich beim Vorstand der dghd für dessen Unterstützung der Reihe.
Die Working Paper sind abrufbar unter https://www.uni-oldenburg.de/fl-workingpaper/
Herausgeber: Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg
Druck: BIS-Druckzentrum
ISSN
Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Nachdruck, auch auszugsweise, verboten. Kein Teil dieses Werks darf ohne schrift-
liche Genehmigung der Autor_innen in irgendeiner Form reproduziert oder unter Verwendung elektronischer
Systeme verarbeitet, vervielfältigt oder verbreitet werden.
Die Veröffentlichung der Working Paper Reihe wird aus Mitteln des Bundesministeriums für Bildung und
Forschung unter dem Förderkennzeichen FKZ 01PL16056 gefördert. Die Verantwortung für den Inhalt
dieser Veröffentlichung liegt bei der Autorin.
Research-Based Learning in Teacher Education
at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
Constanze Saunders
Working Paper Nr. 1, 2017
Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg
3
Abstract
As in other programs in German universities,research-based learning is becoming an inte-
gral part of teacher education programs, also at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (HU Ber-
lin). Here, all future teachers conduct research projects during practicums in their bache-
lor’s and master’s studies. Topics and research methods in these student projects vary
widely. Accompanying research is conducted, supporting quality development in research-
based teacher education at HU Berlin in four areas: 1) curricular integration, 2) the lectur-
ers’ perspective, 3) the students’ perspective and 4) learning outcomes. Methods used
include curriculum analysis, lecturer and student questionnaires, and student inter-
views. Research results are used for development in higher education in various ways, such
as workshops and publications. Future tasks for evaluating and developing research-based
learning in the HU Berlin’s teacher education program need to address the narrowing down
of qualification goals, the adjustment of curricular features across courses and subjects, and
the development of suitable concepts and instruments for measuring target competences.1
Keywords: Research-based learning, teacher education, student research, curriculum, pro-
gram evaluation, program development
1 Research-Based Learning in Teacher Education in Germany
When investigating factors for successful learning in schools, studies have shown that the
quality of the teaching depends on the quality of the teachers – their knowledge, skills, and
not the least, their motivation and enthusiasm for teaching and their interest in the students’
learning progress (cf. Baumert & Kunter 2011). This has resulted in a new focus on the
professionality of teachers in higher education, such as research based on the teacher
competence model of Baumert & Kunter (2011, p. 32) which differentiates between vari-
ous forms of professional knowledge, but also lists motivational orientation, values and
goals as well as self-regulation as important aspects within questions of competence for
teachers in practice. Following this wide-angle perspective on teacher professionality,
innovational means were introduced in teacher training in recent years, one approach being
the explicit integration of research and research-based learning in curricular frameworks.
This is part of an overall endeavor in higher education to counter the teaching-research
1 The author would like to thank Prof. Angela Brew, Malte Lehmann and the publication’s reviewers of
this paper for their valuable suggestions on improving this paper.
4
nexus (cf. Healey 2005), yet also specifically to further these competences of professional
staff in schools. Due to this innovation, federally funded research programs are conducted
to evaluate and further develop research-based learning in German universities which can
contribute to and build on existing concepts and research (cf. Obolenski, 2006; Fichten,
2010; Schüssler et al., 2017). This research project is situated in the described context,
anchored in the recently founded Professional School of Education, a parent institution for
all of the university’s parties within teacher education.
This descriptive paper introduces the institutional and curricular framework for research-
based learning at HU Berlin’s teacher education program as well as the accompanying
research done in our project. The goal of the article is to introduce a model of the curricular
incorporation of research-based learning in teacher education. It also describes the way in
which research is used to develop the program, following mechanisms of design-based
research (cf. Plomp & Nieveen, 2013). The paper presents a series of distinct studies that
have been conducted as responses to issues that arose in practice. It is beyond the scope of
this paper to elaborate on research findings. Research results are only presented as illustra-
tive examples.
Though our research is conducted within the specific field of teacher education, it might
prove to be applicable to other areas as well. I hope that this article can therefore be an
impulse to questions of practice and research in higher education in general, and thus helps
to further shed light our common field of interest of research-based learning and teaching.
The paper begins with general observations about the use of research-based learning in
teacher education and then describes the implementation at the investigated institution,
including some examples of students’ projects (section 2). Section 3 discusses the goals
and methods of the accompanying research project. The paper offers a conclusion and fur-
ther perspectives pertaining to the project and beyond.
Goals of Research-based Learning in Teacher Education
Recently, research-based learning has been declared an academic means to help further
long-term professionalization of future teachers in Germany, aiming at more successful
classroom practice, as well as needs of general school development (cf. Ständige Konfer-
enz der Kultusminister, 2014: p. 3). Research-based learning is supposed to help future
teachers integrate theory and practice. Referring to research in their second practicum and
based on an expert panel’s recommendation, Berlin educational policy argues for this prac-
tice:
5
„Studierende (verknüpfen) relevantes wissenschaftliches Theorie- und Reflexionswissen mit berufs-
praktischen Erfahrungen und führen dazu im Sinne forschenden Lernens theoriegeleitete Erkundungen
sowie Studien-, Unterrichts- und kleine Forschungsprojekte durch.“ (Senatsverwaltung, 2012: p. 50)2
Such student research projects offer a way to develop questions about practical phenomena
based on theories, collect data on-site in the schools, reflect on results and develop new
alternative behaviors based on theories. This cycle offers the students the opportunity to
practice connecting theory and practice with the means of reflecting and improving their
own teaching and general school projects. It is supposed to help students develop an under-
standing of classroom and school practice as an ongoing process of systematical, theory-
and evidence-based development. In national educational policy, research-based learning
has been explicitly named one approach to reach the defined competences for teachers
(Ständige Konferenz der Kultusminister, 2014: p. 6), amongst which innovation relies most
heavily on knowledge and skills acquired though this approach (ibd.:13). In Berlin specifi-
cally, student research projects have been introduced as a mandatory component of the
second school practicum (Gesetz über die Aus-, Fort- und Weiterbildung, 2014: §8 (3)).
Competences trained through research-based learning are understood to develop flexibility
and agency within the teachers in general, preparing them for challenges inside and outside
the classroom. Specifically in Berlin and other German cites, besides a multi-faceted
school system with different school profiles, schools and teachers are faced with new chal-
lenges due to a continuously changing culturally, linguistically and socially heterogeneous
student population, including children with special needs and refugee background. Schools
often lack supplemental personal resources to accommodate for these heterogeneous clas-
ses, posing new challenges to the teachers at work who need to be knowledgeable, flexible
and self-reflective in their day-to-day practice and its development.
It is intended that integrating research-based learning in their education helps future teach-
ers to develop a critical-reflective mindset and evaluative skills both in order to provide for
a more systematic improvement of classroom practice as well as institutional development
in the schools. Not the least, as in other university programs outside of teacher education,
research-based learning is supposed to introduce a more research and theory-based ap-
proach to teacher education in general and thus encourage professional academic research
careers.
2 Students connect relevant scientific theoretical and reflective knowledge with professional-practical
experiences and – corresponding with the goals of research-based learning – conduct theory-based
investigations as well as study projects, classroom projects and small research projects. (translated by
author)
6
2 Research Integration in Teacher Education at the
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
In HU Berlin’s teacher education program, in 2014 new curricular guidelines were intro-
duced and mandatory research tasks were henceforth integrated in the curriculum both in
the bachelor and master phases.3 In their research-based general education modules, the
students are required to conduct two research projects: one during their second and third
bachelor semester and one during their third master semester (Figure 1). Data collection
usually occurs during their stay in the schools. Thus, there is an effort to connect practice
(school practicum) with theory- and evidence-based reflection (university courses) not only
in educational goals but in curricular-structural considerations as well.
Figure 1: Teacher Education at the HU: Structure, Research Task and Exams
Whereas the BA research task is prepared and supported before and after the practicum
through two related courses, the MEd research project is tightly accompanied by a seminar
offered simultaneously during that third semester. Currently, both times the courses give
general introductions in research methods and basic theoretical knowledge on pedagogical
issues related to the students’ projects. They also offer a platform for discussing planned
methods of data collection and analysis. At the end of the BA course, the students compose
research reports, in the MEd course, the students get a chance to present and discuss their
research results extensively with their peers during poster sessions. The individual instruc-
tors differ in their specific defined objectives for their courses and sometimes focus on
overreaching course topics, such as classroom management or academic language educa-
tion.
3 For a more thorough description of research-based learning in general education on the masters level, see
Schaumburg & Saunders, 2017.
7
Students’ Research Projects: Examples
The projects vary widely, depending on the students‘ interests, methodological knowledge
and data collection opportunities within the schools. There are usually about 15 different
courses each semester in both BA and MEd (with numbers rising), and within these, there
is also a variety of seminar designs, though all refer to the same module descriptions and
assessment requirements. Generally, the students are free to choose their topics and re-
search questions, oftentimes given little to no predetermined requirements from the instruc-
tors.
In the BA, the students are given six weeks to collect data, accompanied by a course before
and after; in the MEd available time is one semester, accompanied by a course and a meth-
ods lecture. The students are supposed to 1) create a theoretical and empirical basis for a
research topic, 2) to find or create and use suitable research instruments (observation, ques-
tionnaires, interviews, document analysis), 3) analyse data and present results and connect
these back to theory, and 4) give reasons and reflect decisions made in the research pro-
cess. Overall, this process resembles a complex form of research-based learning according
to Rueß, Gess & Deicke (2016) (cf. Figure 2), which needs to be prepared and accompa-
nied by various educational input (e.g. learning about methods and their use).
In their choice of topic, the students often follow their personal interests, sometimes there
is a focus topic within a course they chose. The following topics, research questions and
methods were chosen in a course taught on general pedagogy in a BA-seminar. They
focused on more general questions of teaching practice and teacher personality.
Table 1: Sample BA-seminar topics
Topic Questions Methods
Classroom Management Which kind of disturbances oc-
cur? What strategies are used to
deal with them? How can disturb-
ances be avoided?
Observation
Student questionnaire
Teacher interviews
Informal talks with students
Media Use in the Classroom
Which digital media are being
used? Which do students and
teachers prefer? What are the
effects of new media on the stu-
dents?
Student survey (n=53)
Informal talk with teachers
Cooperative Learning
To which extent do benefits and
disadvantages
of cooperative
learning occur? What effects do
the disadvantages have further on
in the classes?
Observation
Student questionnaire (n=50)
Informal talks with students and
teachers
8
Teacher Personality Which attributes should a teacher
possess? What type of personality
is especially suited?
Student questionnaire (n=75)
Teacher interviews (n=4)
The following examples are taken from a course on academic language education in
schools (Sprachbildung) of a master’s course, dealing with more specific problems pertain-
ing to this area.
Table 2: Sample MEd-seminar focusing on language education
Topic
Questions
Methods
Strategies of language reflection
In how far does the strategy of
comparing languages further
metalinguistic reflection in multi-
lingual students?
Self-designed test within inter-
vention design (pretest, posttest)
Individual tutoring in reading and
writing
After three months of tutoring, on
which levels (level of processing,
level of subject) can changes be
observed? What quality bear these
changes?
Preexisting diagnosis test within
an intervention design (pretest,
posttest)
Student interview
Knowledge and usage of linguistic
Operatoren 4
To what extent do students know
and are able to apply Operatoren?
Self-designed test, n=36
Means of creating
coherence in
written texts
In a sample of argumentative
texts, which areas of writing abil-
ity are well developed? Which
areas are less well developed?
Document analysis (20 student
texts)
Refugee children’s integration
into regular classes
Project 1) Which aspects support
the learning process of students
from special “welcome classes”
having entered regular year 10
German classes in an open learn-
ing setting?
Project 2) Which concepts do
teachers use to specifically ad-
dress former “welcome class”
stud
ents? In which areas do
teach
ers still see potential for
improving these children’s situa-
tion?
Observation and student inter-
views (n=5)
Observation and teacher inter-
views (n=2)
4 Operatoren: specific verbs used in academic tasks requiring learners to perform a set of (often linguistic)
procedures, e.g. to name, to report, to discuss
9
These tables show that the methods used are mostly participant observation, student sur-
veys, and teacher interviews. Due to tutoring setups between teacher students and school
pupils in the MEd course, some of the designs show pre- and posttests framing an interven-
tion. The topics also reflect a wide range of interests within the BA and MEd modules,
both a source of motivation and struggle for the students. It is generally seen as motivating
if students can choose their own topics (cf. Harnett 2012), however narrowing down re-
search questions, finding or developing suitable instruments and analysing collected data
can be difficult. Even the listed research questions proved not entirely answerable in some
projects. These ‘failures’ were part of the learning process and were individually and com-
monly reflected later in the university classroom.
3 Accompanying Evaluative Research for Program Development
The research project takes a multi-faceted view on the subject at hand and employs differ-
ent methods. Firstly, we wanted to find out how research-based learning was integrated in
the university’s teacher education structurally within the defined curricula (intended curric-
ula) and how it is in fact practiced (implemented curricula); the attained curriculum (learn-
ing outcomes) is addressed in some of its aspects.5 Secondly, we were interested in evalu-
ating and developing current teaching practice, with a focus on general education
(Bildungswissenschaft) and prospectively, on selected subject pedagogy (Fachdidaktiken)
classes. Finally, we aimed to contribute to the scientific discourse on researching research-
based learning, such as instruments and evidence-based theories, pertaining to questions of
competence development and affective-motivational factors in the student learning pro-
cesses within our context. We are currently working in four target areas with four different
studies to reach these goals, using various methodological approaches:
Study 1) Curricular analysis of research-based learning (analysis of 49 curricula, BA
and MEd, all subjects in teacher education),
Study 2) Academics perspective, including current teaching practice of research-based
learning (questionnaire study with 117 instructors; in-depth survey study and
analysis of implemented practice with 14 instructors),
Study 3) Students’ perspective, including challenges with research-based learning (BA
and MEd student interviews and analysis of reflective texts, in progress) and
5 A description of all three types of the curriculum representation is given in van den Akker (2013: p. 56).
10
Study 4) Student attitudes and their changes on reflective teaching practice linked to
specific elements in their classroom and research experience (outcome study,
longitudinal, in progress).
These four areas are addressed within different time spans and with different intended
products, such as teaching materials, workshops, publications and research instruments.
Ultimately, this research is to feed selected results back into academic departments and to
course instructors, e.g. in workshops and through classroom materials. For example, regu-
lar workshops are offered to the staff of the Department of Education to discuss selected
topics and support teaching staff continually improving the program. The project is also
supposed to help communicate the goals and issues of research-based learning to the stu-
dents in the teacher education program. Both instructors and students received a collection
of quotes from student interviews pertaining to the meaning of the student research pro-
jects, possible benefits and advise from the more experienced student group to the novice
students. This material can serve as a basis for reflection and discussion inside and outside
the university classroom. It is one of the project’s central goals to address the students spe-
cifically to raise acceptance and motivation for research-based learning.
Within the project, cooperating with Christopher Gess of HU Berlin’s bologna.lab, a ques-
tionnaire on students’ attitudes about reflective teaching practice was developed which can
be used to measure long-term changes in these attitudes and to identify useful learning
opportunities. It is based on existing (Kunter et al. 2014: pp. 47; Laschke & Felbrich 2014:
p. 496) and newly developed items and assesses attitudes on the significance of three top-
ics for their future teaching practice:
− significance of educational theories (9 items)
− significance of self-directed research (6 items)
− significance of reflection (9 items)
The instrument was piloted and redesigned based on calculations of reliability and can be
adapted to other institutions specific instructional prerequisites. It is currently in use in
Study 4).
Methods, Materials and Selected Results
One integral tool for our understanding of research within teacher education and for
analysing and developing research orientation within the program is the research-based
learning typology according to Rueß, Gess & Deicke (2016). Based on a qualitative
curriculum analysis, the authors introduce a model of research-related learning activities
within higher education, differentiating different content foci and student activity levels:
11
Figure 2: Research-based learning typology (Rueß, Gess & Deicke 2016)
This model can be used to distinguish and categorize different research-based teaching
strategies, as well as matching different types of academic course offers. For example,
lectures are located in the “receptive learning” row, whereas research colloquiums are con-
sidered “applied learning” opportunities, particularly within the category “discuss research
projects”. Finally, this model can be used to show academics in training and students in
research-based classes about different steps when learning to conduct research. In our pro-
ject, the model served as a tool in curriculum analysis and within the training of instructors
to differentiate between various teaching practices and qualification goals.
In the four studies outlined, we are working with both qualitative and quantitative methods,
introduced in the following section, with results being given in exemplary mode, given that
analysis is in a finished or advanced state.
Study 1) Curricular Analysis of Research-based Learning in HU’s Teacher Education
In order to establish a basis for our work and to identify institutional needs, the aim of the
curricular analysis was to gain insight into the existing normative integration of explicit
research orientation and research-based learning of the various BA and MEd program com-
ponents. This overview was used to identify teacher education branches (subject-specific,
e.g. history, math, foreign languages) of more and less frequent research-related learning
activities for further communication, cooperation and development.
... conduct a literature
search on a research topic
... apply a chosen method
to a given research
problem
... conduct their own research
project (full cycle)
... discuss research
findings
... discuss pros and cons
of particular methods
… discuss research
projects
... practice methods ... plan research
projects
... are presented
research findings
... are taught research
methods
... are taught about the
research process
... are taught academic
skills
learning by
research
receptive
learning
applied
learning
level of
students‘ activity
Research processResearch results Research methods
focus
on
12
Of the existing 49 study programs in BA (n=25) and MEd (24), research-oriented modules’
qualification goals and class types were coded, using the typology of Rueß, Gess & Deicke
(2016) as well as a coding instrument developed by this research team of the bologna.lab at
HU Berlin. Coding was done based on 13 categories and resulted in 1297 coded text seg-
ments.
The document analysis showed that research-based learning is included in curricular
specifications differently amongst the subject-specific pedagogical programs. This pertains
to presence and distribution of its various forms (cf. Figure 2). Some programs showed a
recognizable logical progression from receptive to active, results to process; other pro-
grams offered opportunities for discussing and conducting research in a few selected
courses. In general educational sciences, there was an explicit research-based component
in both the bachelor’s and the master’s level. BA and MEd research-based curricular
designs did not always correspond: some programs offered a solid basis of research con-
tents in the BA, but did not pick it up in the next phase while a few programs required
empirically based master’s theses without visible preparation in the BA. Mapping the rela-
tionship between research-orientation in different phases of student development and
different subjects could constitute an interesting further research project.
Study 2) Current Practice of Integrating Research at the HU Berlin teacher
education programs
Besides learning about the normative, intended curricula we wanted to find out more about
how these are implemented in practice in order to provide practical support in particular
teaching contexts. This entailed a wider look at adademics involved in teacher education in
general as well as a closer look at a small group of instructors and their courses within one
particular BA module.
In stage 1 of this study, a survey of 117 academics in the institution’s teacher education
included participants from content sciences (Fachwissenschaften), subject pedagogy
(Fachdidaktiken), general education (Bildungswissenschaft), and language education
(Sprachbildung). Academics in positions of all levels participated: there were 39 full pro-
fessors, 45 research assistants/associate professors, 12 post-docs, and 19 PhD candidates. 6
The questionnaire surveyed pre-existing knowledge and attitudes towards research-based
learning, experiences with the approach as well as perceived necessary institutional support
to enable research-based learning courses. In specific, academic position, teaching load,
college, teaching experience in higher education and student target group were surveyed.
6 Two of the participants provided no information on their position.
13
The main part of the survey contained items on the following topics; Likert scales of 3, 4,
and 5 were used:
− sources of knowledge on research-based learning
− concept of research-based learning
− objectives of research-based learning
− practice of research-based learning in their classes
− requirements for improved implementation of research-based learning
− opinions about student research projects in the MEd practicum
− individual questions about the implementation of research-based learning
In the analysis, results were grouped and interpreted according to academic position, teach-
ing load, college, teaching experience and student target group. For the project, especially
individual questions about the implementation of research were of interest as they pointed
to needs within instructors’ training and communication strategies.
In stage 2 of this study, cooperating with Julia Rueß of the HU’s bologna.lab, 14 instruc-
tors within a research-based learning module general education provided course syllabi and
were surveyed through an online questionnaire about their attitudes and current practice.
This group contained only instructors in the BA second and third semester courses (cf.
Figure 1), had been in continuous program development measures within the department
and cooperated within this endeavour. Results of this survey were introduced and dis-
cussed with the group in a workshop afterwards.
This second stage aimed at investigating the existing practice within one chosen module in
general education, comparing it with the curricular specifications, understanding individual
ways of arguing for or against research-based teaching practices within the academic group
and opening up a discussion within a professional peer group. The syllabi were analysed
according to their qualification goals (if visible) and covered content areas, differentiating
between pedagogical, research-methods and academic working techniques/ academic writ-
ing. The questionnaire contained items and open questions on the following topics:
− course content and reasons for these choices (pedagogical topics, research methods,
academic working techniques incl. academic writing)
− timing of introducing specific research-related topics
− collaborative student research
− information and feedback policy on the research report
− discussion of research-based learning in the classroom, incl. arguments for this approach
− challenges to the students with this research context
− perceived learning outcomes for the students
− technical denomination of the project
14
In the analysis, descriptive results were generated for these topics of interest and compared
to the results of the syllabus analysis. For the presentation, there was a focus on results
considered either controversial within the group or pertaining to current questions within
the module: the comparison of pedagogical vs. research contents and the arguments given,
existing challenges to the students, feedback practice on the research reports, collaborative
student research, and the perceived functions resp. usefulness of the student research pro-
jects. Collaborative work groups created in this workshop are now developing chosen as-
pects within this BA module, such as a further specification of qualification goals and ques-
tions of assessment. Their work results are currently carried on into the master’s module.
In the first stage study, the results showed a generally high interest and openness towards
the concept of research-based learning amongst the participating academics. There was a
high interest in the students’ perspectives on the approach (77%), showing a need for re-
search in this area (cf. Study 3). In order to properly conduct research-based teaching, the
lecturers stated a need for more information on the principles of research-based learning,
suitable material and best practice examples, opportunities for collegiate exchanges, train-
ing and more resources (time and more staff). These were important outcomes for further
academic training development strategies.
Focusing on the lecturers’ current practice the survey showed a pattern where the least
complex and more receptive competencies connected with acquiring research competence
were trained more often in the participants’ courses than the more complex, productive
activities Rueß, Gess & Deicke (2016) refer to as research-based learning (in the more nar-
row sense). Reversely, the surveyed showed gaps in the fields of applying methods, prac-
ticing and discussing methods, planning and discussing the research process and conduct-
ing a complete, own research project, with many of the academics wishing for more oppor-
tunities to fill these gaps.
This result was not surprising as these forms are the more “advanced” research activities
situated at a higher progression level – both in complexity of content and student activity
respectively decision-making. It reflected the challenges posed both to students and
academics, and it supported the findings of the curricular analysis (Study 1). Currently,
students are facing higher demands of research activity with less instructional support as
their studies near towards the most complex form (“research process – researching”); and
the academics see a need to support the students more in the higher levels of the matrix,
possibly without suitable curricular frameworks. Ideally, the academic system and curricu-
lar structures allow both instructors and students to dedicate time to these higher levels of
research-based learning, gearing towards an independent bachelor’s or master’s thesis con-
fidently and with appropriate knowledge and research competence.
15
In the second stage of this study, results showed differences in practice pertaining to focus
on either pedagogical topics, research methods or a more balanced distribution of the two,
with various reasoning, often pertaining to the participating academics’ own professional
backgrounds. In specific, academics who placed much value on their research geared their
seminars more towards their own field of interest, whereas instructors with a school teach-
ing background and less research interest and experience were more open to a variety of
topics and allowed for simpler methodological approaches. Similarly, the teaching of quan-
titative vs. qualitative (or both) methods often depended on the academic research sociali-
zation or preferences, not necessarily on perceived needs of the students. This implied that
academic socialization, interest in research and self-image (school teacher vs. academic
teacher vs. researcher) played important roles in goal selection and course design.
Concerning developing a research design, most instructors taught the students about how
to plan a study and how to formulate research questions, but only few discussed research
ethics. On research methods, all of them introduced observations, questionnaires, and inter-
views. Data analysis was most often discussed after the practicum (i.e. after data collec-
tion), the variety of methods contained quantitative and qualitative approaches, with a
focus on descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. It remained open how suita-
ble various methods were for the students and later on for the teachers in practice. A need
to more clearly define qualification goals became apparent.
Pertaining to the feedback the surveyed academics provided to their students, it was found
that the planning and execution of the research project was often extensively and inten-
sively advised and coached, but there was much less feedback on the finished research
reports besides a grade given electronically. It was concluded that for students to learn
from their research experience and to draw conclusions for their future masters projects, it
was necessary to consider changes in this practice, provided resources are available.
Study 3) Students’ experiences, incl. challenges with research-based learning (in
progress)
As stated above, we found that the surveyed academics were very interested in the students’
perspective on research-based learning, and as our project aims at ensuring quality in
teacher education, the students’ attitudes as well as their learning outcomes are central to
our research. Study 3), which is ongoing, therefore focuses on individual students’ learning
and research experiences, characteristics and interplay of learning opportunities, challenges
and coping strategies as well as suggestions for improving their research experience, using
a qualitative approach. We are sharing the results with the instructors for their course
development as well as comparing the students’ perspective to the surveyed instructors’
perspective (Study 2) to better understand the complexity of the learning situation.
For this study, so far we conducted 23 BA student interviews, containing questions on:
16
− experiences with the course and research project so far
− perceived learning outcomes on the topic of educational research
− experienced and needed learning opportunities for these and better outcomes
− optional: a thought experiment to assess theory-based reflection of a study
These interviews were conducted during the second (n=12) or third bachelor semester
(n=11), reflecting on either the class before or after the practicum. Here, a mixed-methods
approach triangulating the interview data with the results of their questionnaires (Study 4)
is planned.
With the recent introduction of the Praxissemester (practicum semester), we also con-
ducted 17 interviews with masters students which focused on ways of integrating their
research projects within the overall requirements of this demanding period in their studies.
Often, master students didn’t see the connections between their school teaching and their
research tasks. In this group, five students were interviewed during the semester and at the
end, seven more were available for interviews only at the end. The interview foci were:
− attitudes and experiences with research before the practice semester,
− experienced and needed learning opportunities during this semester and
− significance of theories and empirical research for their teaching practice.
As mentioned above, we see a potential in triangulating the results of both the quantitative
and the qualitative investigations in order to find short- and long-term outcomes on attitu-
dinal change pertaining to a reflective teaching practice which can be retraced to specific
learning opportunities throughout the course of the teacher education program (BA and
MEd). Here, results are still being formulated as analysis is still underway.
Besides, we look at our own practice of research-based learning classes within these mod-
ules. For example, 23 reflective student texts (BA n=11, MEd n=12) from the author’s
courses of the last two semesters were coded in a qualitative data analysis. As the bachelor
students’ text basis, the last chapter of their reports containing a reflective statement on
their research experience has been selected, averaging one half to an entire page on aver-
age; for the MEd students, a reflective writing task from their course portfolios was cho-
sen, one to two pages in length. The analysis focused on passages naming or describing
difficulties connected with the research project, results were found based on inductively
defined categories. Overall, there were 24 coded text passages in the BA texts and 81 in the
MEd texts.
The analysis of these 23 reflective texts showed a variety of challenges both within the
research process and pertaining to other aspects of the research experience. Further re-
search is needed, e.g. on potential differences between BA and MEd students.
17
Challenges related to personal and interpersonal aspects
Interestingly, besides expected difficulties along the research path, the data showed that
challenges arose from questions of identity and interpersonal aspects in the schools as well
as a feeling of disorientation and insecurity based on the new experience, shared both by
students at both levels. For example, for some students the interaction with others in the
school along with the others’ expectations about the project and possible results caused
challenges (e.g. mentor-mentee differences). Besides, students mentioned to be over-
whelmed by the novelty of the research experience. They described feelings of disorienta-
tion, insecurity, doubt and indecisiveness, wondering about “how to start a research pro-
ject”, “doing the right thing“, “what to do now“, “reacting to developments openly and
flexibly”, how to get to their set goal, not knowing what to expect, and whether ever to
reach the goal and finish the project. Asked to choose metaphors for their research experi-
ence, students picked a butterfly’s metamorphosis, a maze, an untamed horse, and a strenu-
ous hike with a rewarding view from the mountain peak, for example. These images along
with their descriptions in the reflective texts communicated similar feelings of loss/lack of
orientation and control, gaining a grip on the task and, eventually, prevailing. Besides ex-
pected “technical” difficulties, this affective-motivational aspect of building knowledge,
competence and confidence deserves and requires a considerable amount of attention in the
university classroom and academic endeavours to help students conduct research, regard-
less of which academic field, level or research methodology. In our project, we are plan-
ning on focusing more on this theme.
Study 4) Student attitudes and their changes on reflective teaching practice linked to
specific elements in their classroom and research experience (in progress)
If creating reflective practitioners for schools is one, if not the main goals of introducing
research-based learning, we found it necessary to find a way to assess whether this goal is
achieved in practice and to find out which didactical elements are influential in the class-
room. Thus, in this ongoing research project, the focus lies on outcome and factors influ-
encing the outcome, specifically on an affective-motivational level. This study started in
2016, it is a quantitative survey including the development of the attitude questionnaire
described above. In the last two semesters, the survey was conducted in more than 45 BA
and 15 MEd research-based general education courses in a pre-post-test design, overall
offered by more than 20 instructors. The data collection will continue until the winter
semester 2019/20 when the students of the first and second bachelor cohort will enter their
final master year. This design allows for long-term and multi-method analysis of single
case studies as well as overarching analysis of a large number of students. During the two
semesters surveyed so far, 158 BA students and 92 MEd students took part in both pre- and
posttests of the quantitative surveys. A rise of the number of participants by semester is
18
expected due to new regulations on student intake in the teacher education program. For
this project, analysis is still underway and no results yet to be published available.
In the area of attitude development we are using a longitudinal, mixed methods design with
n>100 per quantitative sample along with qualitative interviews of n>10. The complexity
of such formative evaluation and longitudinal research proves challenging, yet provides for
the chance to look at competence and attitude developments over longer periods of time,
considering various learning opportunities within different phases of teacher education and
explanations of statistical data by means of interview data.
4 Conclusion and Perspectives
This paper has presented general information about research-based learning in teacher edu-
cation, given an example of its implementation at a large German research university,
along with samples of student projects. It also described aims and methods of four
accompanying research projects. As far as the respective goals are concerned, advance-
ments have been made in all four projects. Since some of the studies are designed in a
long-term, mixed-methods design, data collection and analysis are ongoing and results still
pending.
Sharing what we learned, first results have been fed back into relevant parties within the
university and are used for quality development in research-based learning courses in gen-
eral education. However, communication of results and training opportunities will expand:
besides general education, other individual groups will be addressed in the future. Here, for
example, results of the curricular analysis (Study 1) can serve as a basis for internal
curricular program development and course design processes, as well as results from the
conducted surveys.
Study 2) showed various implementations of intended curricular regulations in practice,
which made us wonder what the individual motives were behind these specific research-
based course designs. First assumptions exist, but more in-depth qualitative interviews or
group discussions with academics on selected topics will shed more light in these statistical
results and the complexities of inquiry in the higher education classroom.
Pertaining to the student perspective, Studies 3) and 4) can be looked at separately and in
combination. Besides answers to questions of challenges and potentials of the student
research experience, the qualitative interviews (Study 3) offer exploratory assess to various
questions on the student perspective, yet to be followed up. The design and results of the
longitudinal affective change investigation (Study 4) will be presented to lecturers, stu-
dents and within the scientific community. Case studies that entail both results from the
quantitative and the qualitative studies offer a promising approach to contribute knowledge
19
to the field, possibly identifying types of student experiences with research in teacher edu-
cation.
Out of our analysis, three main foci became apparent that need to be addressed: unclear
respectively unprecise qualification goals, the necessity for more coherence of research
activities throughout the program, and the development of reliable instruments for measur-
ing outcomes.
Firstly, in educational policy documents promoting research-based learning in teacher edu-
cation so far, it is difficult to find specific research competence profiles for future teachers,
making it difficult to design curricula and courses. The demand of reflective practitioners
who are able to understand and apply research to systematically evaluate and develop
school programs and their own teaching is well meant. However, the documents fail to
give specific qualification goals or educational designs based on the needs in the school
context, as well as neglecting the different ideas of the nature of research in the various
scientific disciplines involved in teacher education. Presumably, this lack of definition is
grounded in missing concepts, though first models of teacher research activities exist (cf.
Altrichter/Mayr 2004: p. 170). A more detailed set of qualification goals would allow for
defining specific research training designs – much needed considering limited time to
develop research and or reflective competence within the program – and help respond to
the heterogeneity in implemented research-based academic teaching practice. This
investigative task needs to be a common effort within the teacher education community
and with the schools. With some of its results, this research program can constitute one
step on this path.
Secondly, through the curriculum analysis and the surveys, we learned about the variation
of research-based learning across the different components in teacher education. From a
student and an institutional perspective it is advisable to offer a more logically built
curriculum that provides sufficient time and opportunity to study and practice research
results and methods before advancing to an independent research project. Clearly defined
goals and requirements are also needed here. Besides, a balance needs to be struck between
maintaining a motivating degree of freedom (Harnett 2012) for the students and reducing
negative experience due to overwhelming demands. As a result of our research, we are
currently looking into developing a prototype of such a spiral curriculum (cf. Harden &
Stamper, 1999) based on Rueß, Gess & Deicke (2016).
Finally, resulting out of needs to evaluate outcomes, there is an ongoing effort in our pro-
ject within the bigger research community to define concepts that are the goals of research-
based learning (e.g. research and reflective competence). There is a need to find, adjust or
develop suitable instruments to then measure these competences in order to track teaching
effects and their originating teaching strategies or learning opportunities. These results
20
need then to be communicated to the modules’ academics for application. These strategies’
effects then have to be observed, evaluated and discussed for further development. A first
means constitutes the attitude questionnaire on reflective practice.
So far, in this project, research goals have come out of the needs of higher education prac-
tice on site as well as general interests in the scientific community, ideally these were com-
bined in our research questions. Our plan is to advance in this way, taking into account
results and current issues in the field, comparing these to our studies’ results, and foci of
inquiry will be further narrowed down with the goal to support course development at HU
Berlin as well as contributing evidence-based knowledge to the field in general.
References
Altrichter, H. & Mayr, J. (2004). Forschung in der Lehrerbildung. In S. Blömeke (Ed.),
Handbuch Lehrerbildung (pp. 164–184). Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.
Baumert, J. & Kunter, M. (2011). Das Kompetenzmodell von COACTIV. In M. Kunter,
J. Baumert & W. Blum (Eds.), Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften. Ergebnisse
des Forschungsprogramms COACTIV (pp. 29–54). Münster & New York: Waxmann.
Fichten, W. (2010). Forschendes Lernen in der Lehrerbildung. In U. Eberhardt (Ed.), Neue
Impulse in der Hochschuldidaktik. Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaften (pp. 127–
182). Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.
Gesetz über die Aus-, Fort- und Weiterbildung der Lehrerinnen und Lehrer im Land Berlin
(Lehrkräftebildungsgesetz - LBiG) vom 7. Februar 2014. Retrieved from http://
gesetze.berlin.de/jportal/?quelle=jlink&query=LehrBiG+BE&psml=bsbeprod.psml&
max=true&aiz=true
Harden, R. M., & Stamper, N. (1999). What is a spiral curriculum? Medical Teacher, 21:2,
141–143. doi:10.1080/01421599979752
Harnett, M. (2012). Facilitating motivation through support for autonomy. In M. Brown,
M. Harnett, & T. Stewart (Eds.), Future challenges, sustainable futures. Preceedings
ascilite (pp. 376–385). Wellington. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org/
conferences/Wellington12/2012/images/custom/hartnett,_maggie_-_facilitating.pdf
Healey, M. (2005). Linking research and teaching: exploring disciplinary spaces and the
role of inquiry-based learning. In R. Barnett (Ed.), Reshaping the University. New
Relationships between Research, Scholarship and Teaching. (pp. 67–78). McGraw-
Hill: Open University Press.
Kunter, M. et al. (2014). Dokumentation der Erhebungsinstrumente der Projektphasen des
BilWiss-Forschungsprogramms von 2009-2016: Bildungswissenschaftliches Wissen
21
und der Erwerb professioneller Kompetenz in der Lehramtsausbildung. (p. 47f.) Re-
trieved from https://www.iqb.hu-berlin.de/fdz/studies/BilWiss/BilWiss_Skalenha.pdf
Laschke, C. & Felbrich, A. (2014). Erfassung der Überzeugungen. In C. Laschke & S.
Blömeke (Eds.). Teacher education and development study: Learning to Teach
Mathematics (TEDS – M): Dokumentation der Erhebungsinstrumente. (pp. 495–516).
Münster & New York: Waxmann.
Obolenski, A. (Ed.). (2006). Forschendes Lernen: Theorie und Praxis einer professionel-
len LehrerInnenausbildung (2nd ed.). Oldenburg: Didaktisches Zentrum.
Plomp, T. & Nieveen, N. (Eds.) (2013). Educational Design Research. Enschede: SLO.
Retrieved from http://international.slo.nl/publications/edr/
Rueß, J., Gess, C., & Deicke, W. (2016). Forschendes Lernen und forschungsbezogene
Lehre - empirisch gestützte Systematisierung des Forschungsbezugs hochschulischer
Lehre. Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung (ZfHE), 11 (2), 22–44. Retrieved from
http://www.zfhe.at/index.php/zfhe/article/view/914
Schaumburg, H. & Saunders, C. (2017). Herausforderungen und Perspektiven: Forschen-
des Lernen im Praxissemester an der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. In R. Schüssler,
A. Schöning, V. Schwier, S. Schicht, J. M. Gold & U. Weyland (Eds.), Forschendes
Lernen im Praxissemester. Zugänge, Konzepte, Erfahrungen (pp. 119–125). Bad Heil-
brunn: Klinkhardt.
Schüssler, R., Schöning, A., Schwier, V., Schicht, S., Gold, J. M., & Weyland, U. (Eds.).
(2017). Forschendes Lernen im Praxissemester: Zugänge, Konzepte, Erfahrungen.
Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.
Senatsverwaltung für Bildung, Jugend und Wissenschaft (Ed.) (2012). Ausbildung von
Lehrkräften in Berlin. Empfehlungen der Expertenkommission Lehrerbildung. Retrie-
ved from https://www.berlin.de/imperia/md/content/sen-bildung/lehrer_werden/
expertenkommission_lehrerbildung.pdf?start&ts=1408436475&file=expertenkommiss
ion_lehrerbildung.pdf
Ständige Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland
(2014). Standards für die Lehrerbildung: Bildungswissenschaften. Beschluss der
Kultusministerkonferenz vom 16.12.2004, i. d. F. vom 12.06.2014). Retrieved from
http://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/Dateien/veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/2004/2004_
12_16-Standards-Lehrerbildung-Bildungswissenschaften.pdf
van den Akker, Jan (2013). Curricular Development Research as a Specimen of Educa-
tional Design Research. In Plomp, T. & Nieveen, N. (Eds.): Educational Design Re-
search (pp. 52–71). Enschede: SLO. Retrieved from http://international.slo.nl/
publications/edr/
22
Informationen zur Autorin / information on the author
Dr. Constanze Saunders obtained a PhD from the University of Leipzig and has studied
earlier at that institution, at the University of Arizona in Tucson and the University of
Texas at Austin. Her academic background is German Studies, Applied Linguistics and
German as a Foreign and Second Language. Lately, she has focused more on teacher
education, specifically the role research and research-based learning can play in such
programs. She currently teaches and researches at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.
