Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Volume 45 Issue 12 Article 5

2020

Teachers and Research Practices: Perspectives from English

Language Educators in a Philippine University
Veronico N. Tarrayo
University of Santo Tomas, Manila, the Philippines, vntarrayo@[Link]

Philippe Jose S. Hernandez

University of Santo Tomas, Manila, the Philippines, pshernandez@[Link]

Judith Ma. Angelica S. Claustro

University of Santo Tomas, Manila, the Philippines, jsclaustro@[Link]

Follow this and additional works at: [Link]

Part of the Applied Linguistics Commons, Higher Education and Teaching Commons, and the
Language and Literacy Education Commons

Recommended Citation
Tarrayo, V. N., Hernandez, P. S., & Claustro, J. S. (2020). Teachers and Research Practices: Perspectives
from English Language Educators in a Philippine University. Australian Journal of Teacher Education,
45(12).
[Link]

This Journal Article is posted at Research Online.

[Link]
Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Teachers And Research Practices: Perspectives From English Language

Educators In A Philippine University

Veronico N. Tarrayo
Philippe Jose S. Hernandez
Judith Ma. Angelica S. Claustro
University of Santo Tomas, Manila, the Philippines

Abstract: Given the paucity of studies regarding research practices of

teachers, particularly English language teaching (ELT) practitioners
in the ASEAN region and in the Philippines, this study explores the
research practices of English language teachers in the Philippines.
Using purposive-convenience sampling, a total of 49 teachers of
English from a Philippine university were asked to answer a survey.
To validate the data, pertinent public university documents were
examined, and interviews with the university research heads were
conducted. Findings suggest that the teachers were cognizant of the
link between teaching and their own and their schools’ research
practices. This research also reports the teachers’ positive perception
towards research, and high receptivity to and interest in it. However,
such research engagement was somehow constrained by factors such
as crowded teaching timetables or heavy workload, lack of funding or
financial support, difficulty in understanding (e.g., the language)
published research, and the challenge of contextualising research
findings for classroom use. This paper concludes with a note on how a
conducive research climate in a school is a requisite in cultivating
teachers’ interest in research.

Introduction

The roles of teachers are no longer limited to being effective communicators with
students, organisers of classroom activities, and managers and facilitators of the learning process.
On top of these so-called traditional roles and responsibilities, teachers are also viewed as active
catalysts for change in their educational environment. Brown (2001) avers, “You [teachers] are
an agent for change in a world in desperate need for change: change from competition to
cooperation, from powerlessness to empowerment, from conflict to resolution, from prejudice to
understanding” (p. 445). Larner (2004, as cited in Fareh & Saeed, 2011), who shares the same
perspective, argues that a teacher should “never [be] content with the status quo but rather
always look for a better way” (p. 32). These two empowering statements call for extending the
teacher’s roles to engage in research, that is, developing an inquisitive attitude to identify and
address problems in the classroom (Ulla et al., 2017), question and reflect on teaching practices
(Simms, 2013), and acquire a better understanding of the teaching-learning process. In the field
of English language education, teachers can become ‘researchers’ when their inquisitive nature is

Vol 45, 12, December 2020 73

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

prompted by the need to investigate certain events in the classroom such as understanding how
the language works and deciding on the best teaching techniques and practices that can help
optimise language learning.
Much has been written about the significance of teachers’ engagement in research and
their perceptions towards it. For example, Procter’s (2015) research demonstrated that teachers
put a premium on the use of research practices, both their own and their schools’. Recent studies
have been conducted to explore the importance of doing research (e.g., action or practitioner
research) in terms of improving teachers’ lifelong professional learning (Hine & Lavery, 2014;
Ulla, 2018). Previous studies have also reported that doing research is a way to acquire necessary
skills to identify practical and systematic solutions to classroom problems (Bughio, 2015; Burns,
2010; Hine, 2013). In particular, conducting action research helps boost reflective practices of
teachers in the classroom (Ado, 2013; Cain & Harris, 2013; Hodgson, 2013; Morales, 2016;
Smith et al., 2010). Action research, in this context, is primarily conducted by teacher-
researchers to identify and carefully examine a problem or an issue in the classroom or in the
school that needs solution (Burns & Kurtoglu-Hooton, 2014). While previous investigations have
examined the positive effects of doing research on the teaching-learning process (Borg, 2014;
Burns & Kurtoglu-Hooton, 2014; Fagundes, 2016; Ulla, 2018), a number of research have
revealed the following barriers that prevent teachers from research engagement: lack of research
skills and expertise (Allison & Carey, 2007; Norasmah & Chia, 2016; Zhou 2012); heavy
workload and lack of time (Ellis & Loughland, 2016; Kutlay, 2012; Ulla, 2018), for teachers
work more overtime than any other professions (Wiggins, 2015); and lack of funding or financial
support to run research (Firth, 2016; Vecaldo et al., 2019).
This study reports on research practices used by English language teachers and their
university. The term ‘research practices,’ in this study, is operationalized to cover a range of
activities the teachers and the school use and engage in, such as research-focused discussion with
colleagues in the department/unit, reading and writing (and conducting) research, participation in
research-focused professional or academic conferences, involvement in research-related
networking and collaboration, and the like. Such immersion into research practices draws
attention to Procter (2015), who argued that “for research evidence to be used more effectively, it
is important to know the extent to which research evidence is currently being used by teachers
and their schools” (p. 464). In this theoretical paradigm, knowledge mobilisation becomes
crucial in order for teaching to become an evidence-informed profession. The term ‘knowledge
mobilisation’ pertains to “efforts to understand and strengthen the relationship between research
and practice” (Levin, 2013, p. 2). Cooper and Levin (2010), however, have observed that
teachers lack engagement with available research. Studies have revealed a number of difficulties
with teachers utilizing research upon which to base their practice. For instance, Levin et al.
(2010) have reviewed the research of Cooper et al. (2009) and Levin (2008), and have
highlighted two difficulties:
(1) Concerns about the quality, relevance, and accessibility of research in education
to practitioners and policy-makers (e.g., the use of language or the publication
outlets in which research tends to appear).
(2) Educators report a high level of receptivity to research but a relatively low level of
active engagement with research in the sense of spending time reading or
discussing it. (p. 4)
In another vein, some researchers have noted the value that teachers place on their
professional interpersonal relationships when it comes to research engagement. They highlighted

Vol 45, 12, December 2020 74

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

that colleagues’ personal recommendations influenced what research they considered

(Cordingley, 2004). More so, Levin et al. (2010) observed that personal experience usually has
more impact than research and that professional behaviour is primarily linked to what colleagues
and superiors do and value (Cordingley, 2008; Nutley et al., 2007). These findings point to the
possibility of research findings, despite being vetted and proven to be reliable, being rendered
irrelevant to teachers’ classroom practices.
The present study reports on research into the research practices used by English
language teachers and their university, which is located in Manila, the Philippines. Apart from
the recent local studies by Morales et al. (2016), Ulla (2018), Ulla et al. (2017), and Vecaldo et
al. (2019) which dealt with experiences, benefits, and challenges in doing research, there is a
general lack of research regarding teachers’ and schools’ research practices in the Philippine
setting, which is the gap in the literature this paper addresses. Procter (2015) emphasises that it is
important to look at teachers’ use of research practices as these “may be a determinate of their
proclivity to the use of [research] evidence” (p. 466). The present investigation likewise echoes
the assumption posited by Dehghan and Sahragard (2015); that is, knowing such research
practices and eventually paying a closer attention to developing a positive mentality in teachers
concerning their role as reflective teachers could be a significant stride towards educational
change.

Teachers and Their Research (Dis)Engagement

The literature is rich in arguments in favour of doing research (i.e., teacher research and
action research) and the benefits it brings both to teachers and to their pedagogical practices. For
one, teachers who are engaged in action research have developed confidence in teaching and are
motivated to teach (Borg, 2014). Two, conducting an action research involves teachers in a
systematic intentional examination of their own professional practice (Ado, 2013; Cain & Harris,
2013; Dana & Yendol-Hoppey, 2009; Hodgson, 2013) by “fostering professional growth,
enhancing instruction and assessment, and building reflective skills” (Smith et al., 2010). Three,
teaching practices informed by research increase one’s deeper understanding of students’ needs
(Borg, 2014; Burns, 2010; General Education Council for England, 2006). Lastly, research
engagement can bring teachers together and reflect on pedagogy, and can inspire curiosity and
professional discussion among teachers, giving them a chance to consolidate their existing skills
and practices and develop new ones (General Education Council for England, 2006; Grima-
Farrell, 2017).
In the ASEAN context, however, only a few studies have been published to lend support
to the growing body of literature on teachers and their research practices. For instance, Dehghan
and Sahragard (2015) in their paper “Iranian EFL [English as a Foreign Language] Teachers’
Views on Action Research and Its Application in Their Classrooms: A Case Study,” reported
that while most language teachers who participated in the study were familiar with the
fundamental concepts of action research, they did not use research in their classes, for they
considered it as the duty of professional researchers, not teachers. Through case studies, Zhou
(2012) has identified the problems teachers encountered when conducting action research, which
corroborate earlier findings with respect to teachers’ negative attitudes towards research,
pointing to the lack of time, resources, and professional expertise or knowledge of research (Ellis
& Loughland, 2016; Firth, 2016; Hine & Lavery, 2014; Kutlay, 2012). Related studies on
teachers’ views on research in the Philippine setting have remained limited. The works of

Vol 45, 12, December 2020 75

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Morales (2016), Morales et al. (2016), Ulla (2018), Ulla et al. (2017), and Vecaldo et al. (2019)
revealed that while teachers had positive perceptions towards doing research, they would tend to
disengage from it because of challenges and constraints such as lack of time and insufficient
research knowledge and skills, heavy workload, and inadequate resources and lack of financial
support from schools.
Interestingly, although limited and are found in foreign contexts, a few studies have been
conducted in the field of English language education, which concentrated on teachers’ views on
research. Although Burns and Kurtoglu-Hooton’s (2014), Dehghan and Sahragard’s (2015), and
Fareh and Saeed’s (2011) studies highlighted the benefits of reflective teaching and critical
thinking as results of action research, they found that some language teachers did not rely on
research findings to solve their classroom problems. Instead, they performed actions intuitively
based on their accumulated teaching experiences, preservice training, and basic ideas (Crookes &
Araki, 1999). Kutlay (2012) found that the most common reason why teachers did not conduct
research was the belief that research does not give practical pieces of advice for classroom use.
Further, Allison and Carey (2007) in their study with 22 language teachers in Canada reported
some factors impeding research productivity among teachers, namely lack of time,
encouragement, and expertise; and heavy workload.
A noteworthy contrast about research engagement in terms of reading research could be
identified in Kutlay’s (2012) and Rankin and Becker’s (2006) research. While the latter revealed
that reading and discussing research with a German teacher created a positive change in the
teacher’s classroom practices, the former reported that a majority of teachers rarely read
research, which were usually lifted from web-based sources instead of academic books and
journals. In a recent study, Marsden and Kasprowicz (2017) found that more than half of the
teachers surveyed reported never having read a research and that the average number of research
read during their entire career was nine.
While there has been a sustained interest in conducting studies dealing with benefits and
challenges, and views on doing research among teachers, only a small number of these studies
dealt with realities in the ASEAN context and in the Philippines. More work is needed to
ascertain the roles research engagement play in one’s teaching career and to determine what
practices can make the use of research effective in the teaching profession. Further, although
related research in foreign settings have been done in the field of ELT, no single study exists that
examines teachers’ and schools’ research practices in the Philippines, an area in the literature
which has not been given sufficient attention by scholars. This study likewise puts emphasis on
reading research as a research practice. Firth (2016) and Rankin and Becker (2006) claim that as
a form of research engagement, reading research findings helps teachers develop a better
understanding of educational issues, which they can utilize to reshape their practices. Therefore,
the present study seeks to address the following research questions:
1. What research practices do Filipino teachers of English maintain?
2. What views do these teachers hold with regard to their university’s research practices?
3. What are the perceptions of these teachers towards reading research and its relation to
English language teaching?
4. What factors do they perceive as barriers to reading and utilising research?

Vol 45, 12, December 2020 76

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Method
Participants

The study used nonprobability sampling, particularly purposive-convenience sampling. A

total of 49 university English language teachers from one comprehensive Catholic university in
Manila, the Philippines volunteered to participate in the study. The choice for the university was
based upon the following: first, it is a university based on the typologies set by the Philippine
Commission on Higher Education (CHED)1; second, it has six research centers; and third, its
academic offerings require research output and dissemination. Also, the university has relatively
easier access to academic resources, which include updated international literature and any other
references such as online research journals. The choice for the research site was likewise based
on accessibility and practicality as all three researchers were teaching with the participants in the
university at the time of the study. The researchers believe that these teacher-participants were
involved in this research for the reasons that findings of this study would redound to their own
benefits and that they were representative members and stakeholders of the university
population. A majority of the respondents (79.60%) were female and were relatively young in
the teaching profession, for most of them have been teaching for 11 to 15 years (26.50%), or 16
to 20 years (18.40%). In terms of educational attainment, more than half (67.30%) have master’s
degrees, while 24.50% hold doctorate degrees; those who have bachelor’s degrees had the least
percentage (8.20%). Most of them teach in the undergraduate level, and a few handle courses
both in the undergraduate and graduate levels. A majority of the participants likewise teach
research-related courses and serve as research advisers to their students. Most of them have prior
research engagement, especially during their graduate studies, and some have written and
published research in reputable journals. Some also serve as resident researchers and research
associates in the university’s research centers.

Data Collection and Analysis

A modified online survey questionnaire was formulated based on Procter’s (2015), Levin
et al.’s (2010), and Hall’s (in press) studies. The questionnaire items focus on the importance of
asking about practices rather than attitudes when probing into teacher-practitioners’ research
practices (Levin et al., 2010). The questionnaire was pilot-tested among 30 university English
language teachers who were not actual respondents of the study. Afterward, the questionnaire
was slightly revised based on concerns raised in the pilot-testing. Two essential changes in the
survey questionnaire were made based on the pilot-test results. First, each section about research
practices was provided with a comment section should the participants wish to give additional
details or related experiences. Second, for readability, choices/descriptors appeared in each item
of the online survey.
The questionnaire is composed of six parts: Part 1. Profile of the Respondents; Part 2.
Research Practices: “You and Research”; Part 3. Research Practices: “Your School and

1 The Philippine Commission on Higher Education (2012) defined universities as those that “contribute to nation-building by
providing highly specialized educational experiences to train experts in the various technical and disciplinal areas and by
emphasizing the development of new knowledge and skills through research and development” (p. 8). To qualify as such, an
institution must have a range of bachelor’s to doctoral programs, learning resources to provide knowledge, and faculty members
who are engaged in research, as evidenced by patents and publications. Academic programs must also require the “submission of
a thesis / project / research papers” (p. 20). This regulation led to the subject university providing a research environment that
complies with the requirements, and it permeates to the basic education level.

Vol 45, 12, December 2020 77

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Research”; Part 4. Reading Research and English Language Teaching; Part 5. “Roadblocks” to
Reading and Utilising Research; Part 6. Further Comments. The questionnaire uses a Likert
(1932) scale format to determine the participants’ perception of the extent to which a research
practice is carried out by themselves or their university. Moreover, the questionnaire is a mix of
statements to tick and some open boxes for additional and expanded responses.
A request letter was sent to concerned offices to secure permission to administer the
online survey. It was made clear in the letter that the teachers’ participation in the study was
voluntary and that their responses would remain confidential. Upon approval of the request, the
researchers sent email to the target participants to ask for their voluntary participation. The said
email also clearly discussed the purpose of the study. All the 55 target participants agreed to
participate in the study. After which, the online survey questionnaire was administered among
these English language teachers for two weeks. The response rate was relatively high at 89.09%.
To validate the data, pertinent public university documents were examined, and semi-
structured interviews with the university research heads were conducted. A request letter was
sent to concerned offices to secure permission to access these documents and conduct individual
interviews. The letter stipulated that participation in the study was voluntary and that
interviewees’ responses would remain confidential. Upon approval of the request, the researchers
emailed the written interview form to the participants. Follow-up interviews for further questions
and clarifications were likewise conducted.
The survey data were computed using frequency and percentage in Microsoft Excel, and
were then reported, tabulated, and analysed following the thematic categorisations of the 43
questionnaire items based on the research questions posed. These quantitative findings were
analysed and discussed vis-à-vis the qualitative data obtained from the university documents and
the interviews.

Results
Research Practices: “You and Research”

The first facet of the present investigation dealt with research practices the respondents
maintain. An analysis of the responses indicated that six out of the nine research practices
(66.66%) were either ‘often true’ or ‘mostly true’ for the teacher-respondents (see Table 1). The
three items ‘you have attended research-focused professional or academic conferences in the last
year,’ ‘you have attended research-focused school-, college-, or university-organised events in
the last year,’ and ‘you engage or engaged in research in postgraduate studies’ were ‘mostly true’
for the respondents at 19/49 (38.78%), 17/49 (34.69%), and 18/49 (36.73%), respectively. These
three items are related; teachers are encouraged to pursue graduate studies, which are typically
research-oriented, and with this kind of orientation, they most likely participate in institutionally-
organised and outside-school research-focused academic or professional conferences. In fact,
45/49 (91.80%) of the respondents have master’s and doctorate degrees.

Vol 45, 12, December 2020 78

Australian Journal of Teacher Education
Items Never true Rarely true Often true Mostly true
f % f % f % f %
You engage in research-focused
discussion with colleagues in the 0 0.00 15 30.61 26 53.06 8 16.33
department/unit.
You engage in research-related reading
(e.g., journal articles, professional-
development materials) about 1 2.04 12 24.50 18 36.73 18 36.73
language education and applied
linguistics.
You engage in research-related
4 8.16 18 36.73 17 34.69 10 20.40
networking (formal or informal).
You engage in research-related events
2 4.08 12 24.50 19 38.78 16 32.65
(e.g., conferences, workshops).
You have attended research-focused
professional or academic conferences 4 8.16 9 18.37 17 34.69 19 38.78
in the last year.
You have attended research-focused
school-, college-, or university- 5 10.20 11 22.45 16 32.65 17 34.69
organised events in the last year.
You engage or engaged in research in
10 20.40 7 14.28 14 28.57 18 36.73
postgraduate studies.
You have received funds from the
34 69.39 4 8.16 4 8.16 7 14.28
university to carry out research.
You have received funds from outside
organisations to conduct your 36 73.47 5 10.20 4 8.16 4 8.16
research.
Table 1: Research practices: “You and Research”

A little more than half of the respondents (26/49 or 53.06%) expressed that engagement
in research-focused discussion with colleagues in the department/unit was ‘often true’ for them.
Likewise, the teachers’ relatively high engagement in research was reflected in the items
concerning research-related reading about language education and applied linguistics (18/49 or
36.73%); and research-related events, e.g., conferences, workshops (19/49 or 38.78%). The three
aforementioned research practices may be related in a sense that research ideas gained from
conference or workshop participation and from reading by teachers are discussed between
colleagues to determine how research can be utilised to address important classroom concerns
and to reflect on ideas as to how they may improve their teaching practices. However, they rarely
or often engaged in research-related networking (formal or informal); and they hardly (i.e.,
never) received funds from the university and from outside organisations to conduct research at
34/49 (69.39%) and 36/49 (73.47%), respectively. Growing one’s research network can take
place in professional and academic conferences and organisations where people who share
similar interests discuss and build potential research collaborations. Building a solid network can
also happen through establishing new contacts with peer experts by email or social media, or
through research fellowship. Interestingly, a few respondents provided the following research
practices, the first two of which cover the aspect of research-related networking:
a. “Collaboration with other schools/researchers”
b. “Join professional research organizations, publish research work and contribute in the
review process of research publications, assist in organizing research seminars and
conferences”
c. “I publish my research in reputable journals.”

Vol 45, 12, December 2020 79

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

On the issue of funding opportunities, university policies reveal that a faculty member
may apply for research load and funding prior to the next academic year. This load and
equivalent grant may vary depending on the number of ‘units’ approved. Should a teacher be
granted the research load, this will mean a reduction in the number of classes he or she will be
allowed to teach, to avoid sacrificing the quality of service or output in either or both areas—
teaching and research.
Attendance in research conferences can also be funded, fully or partially, by the
university through the faculty development fund for each faculty member. The university’s
research foundation also provides travel grants for approved research undertakings.

Research Practices: “Your School and Research”

Following the section on describing the respondents’ research practices, the English
language teachers were asked about their views as regards their university’s research practices.

Items Never true Rarely true Often true Mostly true

f % f % f % f %
In your university/school, research is
discussed in faculty or departmental 1 2.04 9 18.37 22 44.90 17 34.69
meetings.
In your university/school, research is
discussed in professional- 1 2.04 9 18.37 20 40.82 19 38.78
development meetings.
In your university/school, research is
discussed in informal networking 0 0.00 12 24.50 26 53.06 11 22.45
events.
Your university/school provides funds for
2 4.08 13 26.53 19 38.78 15 30.61
research generation and utilization.
Your university/school encourages or
facilitates action research (the teacher 1 2.04 12 24.50 24 49.00 12 24.50
or practitioner as researcher).
Your university/school maintains ongoing
relationships with external 1 2.04 8 16.33 26 53.06 14 28.57
researchers.
Your university/school encourages
research-related professional-
development programs (e.g., 0 0.00 4 8.16 18 36.73 27 55.10
postgraduate studies, conference
attendance).
Your university/school sponsors or
coordinates research-focused events 1 2.04 5 10.20 21 42.86 22 44.90
(e.g., workshops, conferences).
Your university/school provides
opportunities for informal 0 0.00 13 26.53 24 49.00 12 24.50
networking related to research.
Your university/school circulates research
2 4.08 11 22.45 17 34.69 19 38.78
articles.
Your university/school provides faculty
members with time to engage in 2 4.08 16 32.65 19 38.78 12 24.50
research-related activities.
Table 2: Research practices: “Your school and research”

Vol 45, 12, December 2020 80

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

An analysis of the responses in Table 2 indicated that eight out of the 11 items (72.72%)
were ‘often true’ for the respondents. On average, nearly half of the teachers (23/49 or 46.93%)
opined that these items were ‘mostly true’ for them: ‘your university/school encourages research-
related professional-development programs (e.g., postgraduate studies, conference attendance),’
‘your university/school sponsors or coordinates research-focused events (e.g., workshops,
conferences),’ and ‘your university/school circulates research articles.’
Five statements about the teachers’ school’s research practices, which were evaluated as
‘often true,’ were scored nearly or above 50%, and they deal with the following aspects:
‘research is discussed in faculty or departmental meetings,’ ‘research is discussed in informal
networking events,’ ‘university/school encourages or facilitates action research (the teacher or
practitioner as researcher),’ ‘university/school maintains ongoing relationships with external
researchers,’ and ‘university/school provides opportunities for informal networking related to
research.’ However, the item ‘your university/school provides faculty members with time to
engage in research-related activities’ was either ‘rarely true’ or ‘often true’ for the English
teachers.
The following school’s or university’s research practices were added by the respondents:
a. “Priority is given to those with research track. How will the newbies get started?”
b. “The university considers research presentations and publications for faculty promotion
and academic ranking.”
c. “The university gives research awards to faculty members who publish their works in
reputable journals.”
d. “Team research or cluster research on their interest”
Excerpts b-d are validated by university policies on promotion and the publication of
available grants for research, such as those by the research and endowment foundation. Also,
recognition activities are conducted annually by the university, with awards classified into ‘Gold
Series,’ ‘Silver Series,’ and ‘International Publication Award,’ depending on the attainment of
set criteria. Finally, research centers are composed of Research Interest Groups (RIGs), where
several faculty members can work on a single project funded by the university and/or an external
agency.

Reading Research and English Language Teaching (ELT)

Another interesting aspect of the present study explored the respondents’ reading-
research practices and the link these practices have to ELT.
An analysis of the responses in Table 3 revealed that the respondents strongly agreed to
nine of the 11 statements (81.81%). The highest scored items, at 41/49 (83.67%) and 35/49
(71.43%), respectively, were ‘English language teachers should regularly read latest research on
language education and applied linguistics’ and ‘reading research regularly provides ideas that
teachers can utilise in class.’ These two complementary statements may entail that if English
language teachers are expected to engage in research to enrich their pedagogical practices, they
should keep themselves abreast of the latest in language education and applied linguistics
through reading research.

Vol 45, 12, December 2020 81

Australian Journal of Teacher Education
Strongly Strongly
Items Disagree Agree
disagree agree
f % f % f % f %
English language teachers should
regularly read latest research on
1 2.04 0 0.00 7 14.28 41 83.67
language education and applied
linguistics.
Reading research is one of the prime
1 2.04 0 0.00 22 44.90 26 53.06
duties of a teacher.
Reading research helps build my
1 2.04 0 0.00 18 36.73 30 61.22
confidence in teaching.
Reading research regularly helps in
1 2.04 0 0.00 14 28.57 34 69.39
teachers’ professional development.
Reading research regularly provides ideas
1 2.04 0 0.00 13 26.53 35 71.43
that teachers can utilise in class.
Reading research provides focuses for
challenging teaching practices, thus
1 2.04 0 0.00 16 32.65 32 65.31
encouraging teachers to undertake
their own practitioner inquiry.
Reading research influences my
1 2.04 1 2.04 22 44.90 25 51.02
classroom practices.
Reading research regularly helps teachers
1 2.04 1 2.04 20 40.82 27 55.10
to make decisions in class.
When I encounter a problem in my
classroom, I try to solve it through 1 2.04 7 14.28 30 61.22 11 22.45
reading research.
The language of research articles is
1 2.04 5 10.20 17 34.69 26 53.06
highly specialised.
My university/school expects me to read
1 2.04 6 12.24 23 46.94 19 38.78
research regularly.
Table 3. Reading research and English language teaching

More so, three of the statements to which the teachers strongly agreed were scored
between 60% to 70%: ‘reading research helps build my confidence in teaching,’ ‘reading
research regularly helps in teachers’ professional development,’ and ‘reading research provides
focuses for challenging teaching practices, thus encouraging teachers to undertake their own
practitioner inquiry.’ As opposed to the above highly scored statements, most respondents
merely agreed to the items ‘when I encounter a problem in my classroom, I try to solve it
through reading research’ (30/49 or 61.22%) and ‘my university/school expects me to read
research regularly’ (23/49 or 46.94%). The latter statement may relate to an earlier finding
concerning the relatively insufficient time the university gives to faculty members to engage in
research-related activities.
Two respondents added comments regarding their reading-research practices:
a. “Unfortunately, administrators hardly have time to read on research, considering their
workload.”
b. “Reading research depends on the interest of the researcher.”

Vol 45, 12, December 2020 82

Australian Journal of Teacher Education
“Roadblocks” to Reading and Utilising Research

The respondents generally gave favourable responses to this aspect of the study. Most of
the items stating factors that serve as barriers to reading and utilising research were evaluated by
the teachers as either ‘not at all’ or ‘slightly.’

Items Not at all Slightly Considerable Very much

f % f % f % f %
I cannot find time to read research. 8 16.33 22 44.90 13 26.53 6 12.24
Published research is challenging and
20 40.82 23 46.94 5 10.20 1 2.04
difficult to understand.
Although language research deals with
classroom problems and students’
needs, research problems are so 19 38.78 20 40.82 9 18.37 1 2.04
localised and unique that they are not
applicable to my context.
Published research is inaccessible and
19 38.78 16 32.65 14 28.57 0 0.00
expensive.
The language used in published research
22 44.90 24 49.00 3 6.12 0 0.00
is difficult to understand.
I cannot make myself interested to read
33 67.35 12 24.50 3 6.12 1 2.04
published research.
Reading research is not necessary
because my own teaching
38 77.55 6 12.24 5 10.20 0 0.00
experiences are sufficient to solve my
classroom problems.
I cannot see the relevance of published
research to my classroom context and 38 77.55 7 14.28 4 8.16 0 0.00
practices.
Published research does not provide
results that apply to several language- 34 69.39 11 22.45 4 8.16 0 0.00
teaching contexts.
I do not have adequate exposure to
research even in my academic 25 51.02 16 32.65 8 16.33 0 0.00
preparations.
Table 4. “Roadblocks” to reading and utilising research

Most of the respondents, at 67% to 78%, strongly expressed that these four statements
never, i.e., ‘not at all,’ served as barriers to reading research: ‘I cannot make myself interested to
read published research,’ ‘reading research is not necessary because my own teaching
experiences are sufficient to solve my classroom problems,’ ‘I cannot see the relevance of
published research to my classroom context and practices,’ and ‘published research does not
provide results that apply to several language-teaching contexts.’ These results, which show a
considerable level of receptivity to research, are consistent with the teachers’ favorable responses
as regards their own research practices and views on the significant link between reading
research and ELT.
While a majority negated the above statements concerning barriers to reading and
utilising research, 22/49 (44.90%) of the respondents opined that the following factors could
prevent them from reading research: ‘published research is challenging and difficult to
understand,’ ‘although language research deals with classroom problems and students’ needs,

Vol 45, 12, December 2020 83

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

research problems are so localised and unique that they are not applicable to my context, ‘ and
‘The language used in published research is difficult to understand.’
Interestingly, a few respondents gave the following additional factors:
a. “Workload”
b. “Too many teaching load or academic-related tasks”
c. “Those who are just getting initiated into reading research find it overwhelming.”
d. “They are not interested to do research because of their age.”

Discussion

Given the paucity of studies regarding research practices of teachers, particularly ELT
practitioners in the ASEAN region and in the Philippines, this study aimed to ascertain the
research practices Filipino teachers of English maintain, the views they hold as regards their
university’s research practices, their perceptions towards reading research and its relation to
ELT, and the factors they perceive as barriers to reading and utilising research. Specific key
points can be taken from the findings. First, with respect to the teachers’ research practices, it
was found that, congruent to the findings in the studies conducted by Behrstock-Sherratt et al.
(2011), Cordingley (2008), and Procter (2015), the participants maintained a relatively high level
of receptivity to research in terms of participation in research-focused events (e.g., academic or
professional conferences, workshops) within and outside the university, engagement in research
in postgraduate studies and in research-focused discussion with colleagues in the department or
unit, and research-related reading. Teaching in a research university, which exposes its
stakeholders to an institutional climate that is committed to research as a central part of its
mission, could be the reason for this positive reception to research of the participants.
In contrast, a few recent findings on teachers’ research practices would show otherwise.
For instance, Dehghan and Sahragard’s (2015) work found that Iranian EFL teachers held a
negative view on doing research. Biruk’s (2013) and Norasmah and Chia’s (2016) studies in
Ethiopia and Malaysia, respectively, also revealed that while teachers held a positive attitude
towards research, their engagement or participation was reported to be relatively low, which
could be attributed to lack of time, resources, and professional expertise.
While the participants in the present study reported a generally positive view on their
research practices, findings also revealed their lack of research engagement because of limited
professional expertise and resources. The English language teachers rarely or often engaged in
research-related networking (formal and informal), so it can be assumed that their professional
expertise in doing research could be inadequate since they hardly engaged in research
mentorship and collaboration, which is an important research practice one respondent added.
Another respondent averred that joining professional research organisations is essential. This
lack of professional expertise in doing research could be surprising since most of the teacher-
participants are graduate-degree holders; thus, it can be assumed that they have relatively
adequate exposure to research. It is worthy to investigate, then, on what caused the seeming halt,
if any, to their research engagement from the time they finished their graduate degrees to the
present.
In addition, some of the teacher-participants reported challenges in accessing research
funds either from the university or external agencies, a similar challenge identified in recent
studies (Ulla et al., 2017; Vecaldo et al., 2019). These two reported challenges may warrant a

Vol 45, 12, December 2020 84

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

review of institutional policies to ensure that funding opportunities are communicated and made
accessible. Conducting department-level trainings and research activities may also be intensified
by the institution. Furthermore, the finding points to the need for the teachers to start building
research collaborations as an excellent way to introduce themselves to other academics and peer
experts. Fortunately, technology has facilitated communication among scholars in different fields
across the globe. Teachers may use social media, e.g., Facebook where a number of online
teacher-development platforms can be found, to share their research ideas and collaborate with
other language researchers and language-teaching professionals.
Second, the teachers, in general, positively viewed the university’s research practices in
most aspects, which include encouraging teachers to engage in research-related professional-
development programs, sponsoring or coordinating research-focused events, circulating research
articles, discussing research in faculty or department meetings, encouraging or facilitating action
research, and providing opportunities for research-related collaboration or networking. It can be
deduced from these findings that the university values research culture and highlights
professional interpersonal relationships in exposing teachers to research. One respondent
commented that it would really help teachers and the university if teachers will be exposed to
research at the onset of their career; she shared, “sometimes, exposure can lead to falling in love
in research.” Cordingley (2004) noted that colleagues’ personal recommendations influenced
what research they would ponder on. Also, teachers who conduct research can share with their
colleagues best pedagogical practices that are important for learners (Grima-Farrell, 2017;
Simms, 2013). In this context, the need to collaborate with teachers as practitioner researchers in
addressing the needs of diverse learners in classrooms becomes crucial. By and large, research
engagement cultivated by schools can help teachers get together and inspire them to be involved
in professional discussion and reflect on pedagogy.
On the other hand, the teachers thought that the university provided them with limited
time to engage in research-related activities. They perhaps rarely had time to do research because
of so much teaching hours (Kutlay, 2012; Morales, 2016; Ulla, 2018). To mitigate this challenge,
the university may incentivise teachers’ involvement in research. Two respondents added that the
university considers research presentations and publications for faculty promotion and academic
ranking, and gives research awards to faculty members who publish works in reputable journals.
Third, reading research was covered as an added and more specific layer in exploring the
teacher-participants’ research practices. The participants believed that reading research has a
direct link to their ELT practices, and that reading research could create a positive change in a
teacher’s classroom practices (Rankin & Becker, 2006). Specific key points can be inferred from
this finding. For one, reading research can help teachers make informed decisions in addressing
issues or concerns in the classroom. Two, informed by trends and current issues in the field, ELT
practitioners can bring to the classroom relevant information borne out of research, which can
enhance the teaching-learning experience. Lastly, educational institutions and academics should
work together in ensuring that research findings are integrated from the curriculum down to the
instructional level, and that in light of latest research findings, traditional teaching techniques are
gradually transformed into new ones. In other words, research should ground teaching.
Finally, as to the roadblocks to reading and utilising research, the respondents did not
report any major concern or factor preventing them from engaging in research through reading. It
can be assumed that they are cognizant of their reading-research practices and priorities, and this
can be attributed to their exposure to an institutional climate that nurtures research culture as
integral to its mission. Also, since they teach in a research university, they are provided with a

Vol 45, 12, December 2020 85

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

relatively easier access to updated academic resources and literature such as online research
journals subscribed by the university library. However, they believed that challenges in
understanding published research, e.g., the use of language, and in contextualising research
findings for classroom use could potentially serve as barriers (Kutlay, 2012; Levin et al., 2010,
as cited in Procter, 2015). One respondent added that getting initiated into reading research can
be overwhelming, while two others noted that too many workload limits the time they can spend
for reading research. Two key points can be deduced from these findings.
First, while some great papers have to be long, e.g., state-of-the-art review papers
synthesizing years of research with a purpose to determine directions for future research
(Renandya, 2020), academic research, they tend to be cumbersome and are not always easy to
read. Krashen (2019) in his article about writing short papers published in Language Magazine
emphasized that teachers do not read ‘serious’ scholarly articles because they do not have time
and are overworked, a reality which was recently reported in Marsden and Kasprowicz’s (2017)
study. Likewise, Krashen (2019) argued that most research and theory papers tend to be
unnecessarily long and tedious.
Second, since reading/writing long papers is a luxury most language teachers cannot
afford (Renandya, 2020), it can be assumed that the teacher-participants in the present study
would prefer to read (and perhaps write) short and practical papers (e.g., brief reports,
pedagogically-oriented research), which can be found in certain publications such as Modern
English Teacher and Humanising Language Teaching. However, as this assumption is currently
unknown, further investigation may be conducted to explore this area. Maley (2016) opines that
academic research, which is done to critique and to advance existing theories, has no immediate
applications for language teaching; thus, it may be uncertain if teachers will find reading
academic research useful for their own research.

Conclusion

This investigation into the research practices of Filipino teachers has added another
textured layer of research to the area, one that explores research practices from the point-of-view
of English language teachers. One important thing the present study has found is that the English
language teachers are keenly aware of the link between their own and their schools’ research
practices, and teaching. Teaching in a university that promotes a conducive research climate can
be a crucial factor why the teacher-participants are interested in research. They are interested in
research evidence from which they can base their practice in English language teaching. Their
positive perception towards research, and high receptivity to and interest in it are commendable
yet are somehow constrained by certain factors such as crowded teaching timetables or heavy
workloads, lack of funding or financial support, which are contextual factors beyond their
control; and difficulty in understanding (e.g., particularly the language) published research along
with the challenge in contextualising research findings for classroom use. As argued by Procter
(2015), “If teachers are allowed the time and space to engage with research evidence, to be
critical of it and reflect on it, then there is a better chance that they can change their practice
based on research evidence” (p. 475). Therefore, given the right conditions for research, teachers
could be catalysts for change in the field of education and beyond.
While the present study claims strengths in exploring the research practices of English
language teachers in a Philippine university, the findings may not provide a sound representation

Vol 45, 12, December 2020 86

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

of all English language teachers in the Philippines. Given the limited number of teacher-
respondents, this study suggests that a follow-up research should include more English language
teachers from different Philippine academic institutions to yield more comprehensive results. A
qualitative study through interviews can also be conducted to probe deeper into the research
practices, motivations, and challenges of Filipino teachers of English.

References

Ado, K. (2013). Action research: Professional development to help support and retain early
career teachers. Educational Action Research, 21(2), 131-146.
[Link]
Allison, D., & Carey, J. (2007). What do university language teachers say about language
teaching research?. TESL Canada Journal, 24(2), 61-81.
[Link]
Behrstock-Sherratt, E., Drill, K., & Miller, S. (2011). Is the supply in demand? Exploring how,
when, and why teachers use research. Learning Point Associates.
Biruk, H.E. (2013). The Practice and Challenges in Conducting Action Research: The case of
Sululta Secondary School (Master’s thesis). Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia.
Borg, S. (2014). Teacher research for professional development. In G. Pickering, & P.
Gunashekar (Eds.), Innovation in English language teacher education (pp.23-28).
Selected papers from the fourth International Teacher Educator Conference, Hyderabad,
India. [Link]
teacher-trainers/innovation-english-language-teacher-education
Brown, H.D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd
ed.). Longman, Inc.
Bughio, F.A. (2015). Issues and challenges in doing action research in public sector university,
Journal of Research in Social Sciences, 3(1), 86-95.
Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching: A guide for
practitioners. Routledge. [Link]
Burns, A., & Kurtoglu-Hooton, N. (2014). Implementing action research in the modern language
classroom. Scottish Languages Review, 27, 21-28.
Cain, T., & Harris, R. (2013). Teachers’ action research in a culture of performativity.
Educational Action Research, 21(3), 343-358.
[Link]
Commission on Higher Education. (2012). Policy-standard to enhance quality assurance (QA) in
Philippine higher education through an outcomes-based and typology-based QA.
[Link]
Cooper, A., & Levin, B. (2010). Some Canadian contributions to understanding knowledge
mobilization. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate, and Practice, 6(3),
351-369. [Link]
Cooper, A., Levin, B., & Campbell, C. (2009). The growing (but still limited) importance of
evidence in educational policy and practice. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2-3),
159-171. [Link]
Cordingley, P. (2004). Teachers using evidence: What we know about teaching and learning to
practice in education. Open University Press.

Vol 45, 12, December 2020 87

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Cordingley, P. (2008). Research and evidence-informed practice: Focusing on practice and

practitioners. Cambridge Journal of Education, 38(1), 37-52.
[Link]
Crookes, G., & Arakaki, L. (1999). Teaching idea sources and work conditions in an ESL
program. TESOL Journal, 8(1), 15-19. [Link]
3533.1999.tb00151.x
Dana, N.F., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2009). The reflective educator’s guide to classroom
research: Learning to teach and teaching to learn through practitioner inquiry (2nd ed.).
Corwin Press.
Dehghan, F., & Sahragard, R. (2015): Iranian EFL teachers’ views on action research and its
application in their classrooms: A case study. Journal of Teacher Education and
Educators, 4(1), 39-52.
Ellis, N., & Loughland, T. (2016). The challenges of practitioner research: A comparative study
of Singapore and NSW. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(2), 122-136.
[Link]
Fagundes, T.B. (2016). Concepts of the teacher as researcher and reflective teacher: Perspectives
about teachers’ work. Revista Brasileira de Educa� �o, 21(65), 281-298.
[Link]
Fareh, S., & Saeed, A.T. (2011). The teacher as researcher in the context of language teaching.
Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 153-159.
[Link]
Firth, J. (2016). Research engagement for the school teacher and its role in the education
community. Education in the North, 23(2), 161-166.
General Teaching Council for England. (2006). Using research in your school and your
teaching: Research-engaged professional practice. Whittington House.
Grima-Farrell, C. (2017). What matters in a research to practice cycle? Teachers as researchers.
Springer. [Link]
Hall, G. (in press). Reading research: English language teachers’ practices and priorities. British
Council.
Hine, G.S.C. (2013). The importance of action research in teacher education programs. Issues in
Educational Research, 23(2), 151-163. [Link]
Hine, G.S.C., & Lavery, S.D. (2014). Action research: Informing professional practice within
schools. Issues in Educational Research, 24(2), 162-173.
[Link]
Hodgson, Y. (2013). Using action research to improve student engagement in a peer-assisted
learning programme. Educational Action Research, 21(3), 359-375.
[Link]
Krashen, S. (2019, January). What I would like to see happen in 2019: Easy and free access to all
scientific knowledge. Language Magazine.
[Link]
[Link]
Kutlay, N. (2012). A survey of English language teachers’ view of research. Procedia Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 70, 188-206. [Link]
Levin, B. (2008). Thinking about knowledge mobilization. Paper prepared for an invitational
symposium sponsored by the Canadian Council on Learning and the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada. Vancouver, May.

Vol 45, 12, December 2020 88

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Levin, B. (2013). To know is not enough: Research knowledge and its use. Review of Education,
1(1), 2-31. [Link]
Levin, B., Cooper, A., Mascarenhas, S., & Thompson, K. (2010). Using interventions to increase
knowledge mobilization in Canadian secondary schools. Paper presented at the American
Educational Research Association Conference. Denver, CO, April.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 1-
55.
Maley, A. (2016). More research is needed - A mantra too far? Humanising Language Teaching,
18(3). [Link]
Marsden, E., & Kasprowicz, R. (2017). Foreign language educators’ exposure to research:
Reported experiences, exposure via citations, and a proposal for action. The Modern
Language Journal, 101(4), 613-642. [Link]
Morales, M.P.E. (2016). Participatory Action Research (PAR) cum Action Research (AR) in
teacher professional development: A literature review. International Journal of Research
in Education and Science (IJRES), 2(1), 156-165. [Link]
Morales, M.P.E., Abulon, E.L.R., Roxas-Soriano, P., David, A.P., Hermosisima, V.H., &
Gerundio, M. (2016). Examining teachers’ conception of and needs on action research.
Issues in Educational Research, 26(3), 464-489. [Link]
[Link]
Norasmah, O., & Chia, S.Y. (2016). The challenges of action research implementation in
Malaysian schools. Pertanika Journals Social Sciences & Humanities, 24(1), 43-52.
Nutley, S., Walter, I., & Davies, H. (2007). Using evidence: How research can inform public
services. Policy Press. [Link]
Procter, R. (2015). Teachers and school research practices: The gaps between the values and
practices of teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and
Pedagogy, 41(5), 1-14. [Link]
Rankin, J., & Becker, F. (2006). Does reading the research make a difference? A case study of
teacher growth in FL German. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 353-372.
[Link]
Renandya, W.A. (2020). The joy of writing. [Link]
writing/?fbclid=IwAR2Caf54sbykPyIyaV5Js5bbRNzZL284fSqmjNJEOBSP5ERWtIG0
KnWfw6Y
Simms, M. (2013). A teacher-educator uses action research to develop culturally conscious
curriculum planners. Democracy & Education, 21(2). Article 3.
[Link]
Smith, J.J., Yendol-Hoppey, D., & Milam, R.S. (2010). Reflexivity within the teacher research
cycle: Promoting prospective teachers’ progress toward an inquiry stance. In E.G.
Pultorak (Ed.), The purposes, practices, and professionalism of teacher reflexivity:
Insights for twenty-first century teachers and students (pp. 3-24). Rowman & Littlefield
Education.
Ulla, M.B. (2018). Benefits and challenges of doing research: Experiences from Philippine
public school teachers. Issues in Educational Research, 28(3), 797-810.
[Link]
Ulla, M.B., Barrera, K.B., & Acompanado, M.M. (2017). Philippine classroom teachers as
researchers: Teachers’ perceptions, motivations, and challenges. Australian Journal of
Teacher Education, 42(11), 52-64. [Link]

Vol 45, 12, December 2020 89

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Vecaldo, R., Asuncion, J.E., & Ulla, M. (2019): From writing to presenting and publishing
research articles: Experiences of Philippine education faculty-researchers. Eurasian
Journal of Educational Research, 81, 147-164. [Link]
Wiggins, K. (2015). Teachers work more overtime than any other professionals, analysis finds.
TES. [Link]
analysis-finds
Zhou, J. (2012). Problems teachers face when doing action research and finding possible
solutions. Chinese Education & Society, 45(4), 68-80. [Link]
1932450405

Acknowledgment

The researchers would like to thank Dr. Richard Procter for allowing them to adapt his
survey questionnaire for this study.

Vol 45, 12, December 2020 90