International Journal of Research & Method in Education

ISSN: 1743-727X (Print) 1743-7288 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cwse20

Consuming, producing, and justifying: Finnish

student teachers’ views of research methods

Reijo Byman, Katriina Maaranen & Pertti Kansanen

To cite this article: Reijo Byman, Katriina Maaranen & Pertti Kansanen (2020): Consuming,
producing, and justifying: Finnish student teachers’ views of research methods, International
Journal of Research & Method in Education, DOI: 10.1080/1743727X.2020.1737003

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2020.1737003

Published online: 10 Mar 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 13

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cwse20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH & METHOD IN EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2020.1737003

Consuming, producing, and justifying: Finnish student teachers’

views of research methods
Reijo Byman , Katriina Maaranen and Pertti Kansanen
Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

From the end of the 1970s, all teacher education programmes have been a Received 23 June 2019
part of academic higher education in Finland. Thus, TE has been Accepted 7 February 2020
implemented in universities and all Finnish comprehensive and upper-
KEYWORDS
secondary school teachers have a master’s degree. Research methods Research-based teacher
courses have been an essential part of teacher education courses for education; student teachers;
over 40 years. Our results revealed that students in all educational research methods;
programmes seem to prefer empirical methods to theoretical methods quantitative and qualitative
as a way of acquiring educational knowledge. In line with previous methods
studies, an aversion to quantitative methods was also found in the
present study. However, there were some exceptions to this overall
view. Most of the students in our study recognized that teachers need
research skills in their practical work. The students acknowledged that
these kinds of skills are especially important when acquainting
themselves with new research results in their professional field.

Introduction: teacher education in Finland

From the end of the 1970s, all teacher education (TE) programmes have been a part of academic
higher education in Finland. Thus, teacher education has been implemented in universities and all
Finnish comprehensive and upper-secondary school teachers have a master’s degree. Teacher edu-
cation is based according to the principles of higher education, which means that on the one hand
that it is based on evidence-based teaching, and on the other hand that it is based on research on
one’s own work. These principles refer to all teacher education, both class teachers (grades 1–6) and
subject teachers (grades 7–12), and it is the main organizing theme of the programmes which we call
research-based teacher education (e.g. Sahlberg 2011; Niemi, Toom, and Kallioniemi 2012; Kansanen
2014, 2015).
Finnish teachers have a great deal of pedagogical autonomy or freedom in their work (e.g. Niemi
2017; Tirri 2014), and since the 1980s, teachers could decide independently how to implement the
curriculum (Saari, Salmela, and Vilkkilä 2014, 194; Simola 2015; Aho, Pitkänen, and Sahlberg 2006),
and, for example, develop and implement new pedagogies, such as phenomenon-based learning
(e.g. Lonka 2018). This means that Finnish teachers need to be able to think critically, develop the
local curriculum, and act as pedagogical decision-makers.
Research-based teacher education in Finland (Toom et al. 2010; Krokfors et al. 2011) means
that all the courses are integrated with research. However, the aim is not to educate research-
ers as such, but to produce autonomous and reflective teachers who are capable of using
research in their teaching and can be defined as pedagogically thinking teachers (Tirri 2014;

CONTACT Reijo Byman reijo.byman@helsinki.fi

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 R. BYMAN ET AL.

Kansanen et al. 2000). Reaching this aim requires a multifaceted understanding of research
methods. Research-based teacher education also requires student teachers to produce their
own research in the form of a bachelor’s and a master’s thesis. Future teachers should be
able to base their pedagogical decision-making on a theoretical foundation and reflect on
their work as teachers.
This study took place at the University of Helsinki. The participants in this study included teacher
students from many different tracks, including class (elementary school) teachers, handicraft tea-
chers, home economics teachers, special education teachers, and kindergarten teachers and early
childhood master’s programme students.
As Finnish student teachers’ studies include research methods courses as well as an extensive
research project (BA and MA theses), we were interested in finding out what the students
thought about education as a branch of science, about research methods in general, and why
they think research methods should be studied during their education or not. We do not have
very much knowledge of students’ views on the role of research and research methods within
the context of teacher education. Moreover, we do not know whether students see research and
studying research methods as meaningful or whether they recognize that this kind of enquiry
has personal relevance for them as teachers (cf. Nind and Lewthwaite 2018). According to previous
studies (for a review, see Renninger and Hidi 2016; Schiefele 2009), the recognition of personal rel-
evance and the meaningfulness of the learning contents are key aspects for triggering interest in a
subject. In Finland, most work in the field of students’ research skills learning has been carried out
by Murtonen (2005, 2015) and Murtonen et al. (2008); however, these studies focus on university
students in general, not on teacher trainees. Rautopuro (2010) has investigated the state of statisti-
cal research and the problems of teaching and learning statistical methods in educational sciences
in Finland. Recently, Aspfors and Eklund (2017) have studied newly qualified teachers’ experiences
about research-based teacher education in Finland with a sample of 10 students. We, however,
decided to investigate this phenomenon using a different methodology and with a sample of
459 student teachers.

Research-based teacher education

Based on Griffiths’ (2004, 722) analysis, the research orientations in higher education are: (1) research-
led, (2) research-oriented, (3) research-based and (4) research-informed teaching. The Finnish orien-
tation resembles research-based teacher education in Griffiths’ classification and has four
characteristics:

(1) the study programme is structured according to a systematic analysis of education;

(2) all teaching is based on research;
(3) activities are organized in such a way that students can practise argumentation, decision-making
and justification when inquiring about and solving pedagogical problems; and
(4) student teachers learn formal research skills during their studies. When teaching is based on
research, teacher educators teach what they study, or their teaching draws from well-articulated
knowledge of fresh research.

Research-based teacher education defined in this way has two facets. On the one hand, the pro-
grammes are built on evidence of research results. Although educational research is still meagre in
this respect it is developing all the time and apparently plays a greater role in the work of future tea-
chers (e.g. Hattie 2009; Cochran-Smith and Zeichner 2005; Wall 2018). The other side of research-
based teacher education is the skill of metacognition in the role of reflection or pedagogical thinking
(Schön 1983; Kansanen et al. 2000; Jakku-Sihvonen and Niemi 2006, 2007). It is a means by which
autonomous teachers can develop their own work.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH & METHOD IN EDUCATION 3

In research-based teacher education, all the courses are integrated with research and they all take
an inquiring stance towards ongoing pedagogical questions. The aim is to educate autonomous and
reflective teachers who can be characterized as pedagogically thinking teachers. The aim is not to
produce researchers as such, but instead to provide students with the skills and knowledge they
need to utilize what they have learned, to observe their pupils, and to analyse their own thinking.
(For more, see Toom et al. 2010; Kansanen 2007, 2014; Krokfors 2007; Westbury et al. 2005; Wall 2018.)
The series of research endeavours presented in this article may serve as empirical evidence for
contemplating the education of future teachers. The world needs different kinds of research for
different purposes (Ercikan and Roth 2006; Wall 2018). According to Ercikan and Roth (2006, 21):
‘research methods are means to answer knowledge-constitutive questions’. So, the research question
determines the methods, not the other way round.
In Finland, all teacher education programmes include a research-based master’s thesis. Thus, from
the beginning of the studies, quantitative, qualitative, and integrative research methods courses are
organized, and the goal of Finnish teacher education programmes is to achieve an overall under-
standing of epistemological and methodological questions.

The role of research methods courses in teacher education

The development of research methods courses in Finnish teacher education has followed global
trends. Hsu (2005), for instance, provides a very good overview of how research methods and data
analysis procedures in education have changed from 1971 to 1998. At the beginning of university-
based teacher education in the late 1970s, research methods courses were mainly quantitative in
nature. Along with the universal shift towards the qualitative paradigm, Finnish research methods
courses and teaching in the universities also changed (Rautopuro 2010). In the field of teachers
and teaching, the paradigmatic change came with an increased interest in teachers’ thinking (e.g.
Clark and Yinger 1977; Elbaz 1983; Clark and Peterson 1986; Strömnes and Sövik 1987).
Alongside the concept of a teacher as a practitioner researcher, the emphasis of research methods
courses has increasingly developed into qualitative approaches and procedures, such as case studies,
qualitative content analysis, action research, grounded theory, various kinds of interviews, and so on
(cf. Nind and Lewthwaite 2018). In short, the aim of research-based teacher education is to be able to
make educational decisions based on rational argumentation in addition to everyday or intuitional
argumentation. In order to achieve this, student teachers need to acquire a general understanding
of all-round research methods, and as a result, teachers should be able to do their own research (Kan-
sanen 2006, 11). In other words, research-based thinking aims at the use of research competences in
one’s own teaching and in making one’s own educational decisions. Kansanen (2004) emphasizes the
importance of knowing research methods in order to increase the teacher’s autonomy as well as
develop pedagogical thinking:
These [knowing research methods, increasing autonomy, and developing pedagogical thinking] aim at develop-
ing overall competence of research methods in the sense that teachers get a general understanding of research
methods and are able to apply one or more methods in their own everyday practice. The teacher is seen as a
practitioner-researcher, without professional research competences but competent enough to think and act
according to the criteria of research. Further, the teachers will be able to justify their decisions through
research-based thinking. (Kansanen 2004, 213)

It is important that teachers are able to do practitioner research as part of their professional work, as
Linda Darling-Hammond (2006) has stated. Teacher research and teacher inquiry are important tools
in professional development, and in order for teachers to be able to develop professionally, they need
to both consume as well as produce research (Vialle, Hall, and Booth 1997). Studies by Maaranen
(2009, 2010) indicate that student teachers benefited from their MA thesis research when it was con-
ducted on a practical topic that served some personal goal, and when teachers reported that they
had developed professionally as well as improved their scientific thinking skills.
4 R. BYMAN ET AL.

Description of the methodology and methods courses at the Faculty of Educational

Sciences
Research methods courses have been an essential part of teacher education courses for over forty
years. The course structure is cumulative and starts with a lecture course called Introduction to edu-
cational research (3 credits). This course provides basic information on research in general, research
methodology and research methods, and on understanding both quantitative and qualitative
paradigms.
The second course, Educational research methods (7 credits), is planned for second-year students
and is divided into two halves. The first half concentrates on qualitative research methods and the
second on quantitative research methods. The course includes a series of lectures and group sessions,
in which the students practise conducting research, for example using computer programs, and tran-
scribing or analysing empirical data.
Based on this second course, the students are prepared to proceed to their bachelor’s thesis. This
is an independent piece of research that despite being relatively short, contains all the major
elements of research – an introduction, theoretical background, research objectives, description
of methods and data collection, reporting of the results, and a conclusion. This thesis is usually
about 30 pages long. Students are free to choose their topic and decide what kind of research
methods to use. The BA thesis includes a seminar session with weekly meetings, which the students
participate in during one academic year. The entire project is worth 10 credits. After completing all
the required studies in the bachelor’s programme, the students proceed to MA studies in the
master’s programme.
In the final research methods courses, students can choose and concentrate on either qualitative
or quantitative methods. These courses are called Advanced qualitative research methods and
Advanced quantitative research methods and they are both worth 5 credits. In these courses, the
aim is to become more deeply familiar with advanced methods and to provide tools for students
to be able to complete their own master’s thesis. The MA thesis is more extensive than the BA
thesis, otherwise, the same previously mentioned principles apply. The length of the MA thesis is
about 80–120 pages and the entire project with the weekly seminar sessions during one academic
year amounts to 40 credits.
Altogether, Finnish student teachers are awarded 70 credits for research methods courses and for
conducting their own research, totalling about 23% of their entire studies (300 credits). The courses
are, of course, integrated with other programme content. The qualitative research methods courses
in the intermediate stage include topics such as research ethics, methods of observation and inter-
view techniques, conducting content analysis, trustworthiness of qualitative studies, and the role of
the researcher. The advanced stage contains topics such as action research, ethnography, varieties of
content analyses, video-observation, and narrative methods. The topics may vary from year to year to
some extent depending on the faculty involved in the courses. The quantitative research methods in
the intermediate stage include topics such as instrumentation, descriptive statistics, basics of statisti-
cal analysis, correlation and t-test, using a statistical computer program (SPSS), etc. The advanced
stage includes topics such as analysis of variance, factor analysis, and regression analysis. Besides
these courses, students can choose optional research methods courses in order to broaden and
deepen their understanding of research methodology. These courses include topics such as mixed
methods, ethnography, discourse analysis, and so on.

In what way are research skills needed and used in the instructional process?
Since the 1980s, decentralization in governance has led to the suspension of school inspections, con-
trols have been loosened, and teachers can now decide independently how to implement the curri-
culum (Saari, Salmela, and Vilkkilä 2014, 194; Simola 2015; Aho, Pitkänen, and Sahlberg 2006). Thus,
the national curriculum in Finland gives very broad guidelines and does not restrict the pedagogical
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH & METHOD IN EDUCATION 5

autonomy of teachers, and neither is the government standardized testing carried out on a yearly or
national basis (e.g. Simola 2015).
Råde (2019) talks about discourses that reflect the dichotomy between academic and practical
knowledge, which are described as horizontal and vertical discourses. According to him, vertical dis-
course research activities contain practical activities, whereas ‘teaching, in the horizontal discourse,
contains theoretical activities as for example reflection and analytical thinking in connection to plan-
ning and evaluation of teaching situations’ (Råde 2019, 3). ‘A vertical discourse has a robust system of
concepts that can be used by teachers and help them to describe and theorize from empirical situ-
ations, which gives a broader understanding of the teaching situation (Beach 2011)’ (Råde 2019, 3).
In the instructional process, research skills are continuously needed and come into use. They may
be utilized in planning and realizing the plan as well as in evaluating the success of the process. The
nature of the instructional process, on the other hand, determines the content and the kind of
research methods to be applied. A teacher’s work has often been characterized as a form of
action research and many of the requirements concerning teacher research come close to action
research (e.g. Elliott 1991). Teachers need to be able to analyse and think critically in order to
assist their students (Darling-Hammond 2006; Zeichner 2010). According to Niemi and Jakku-Sihvo-
nen (2006):
Teachers need a profound knowledge of the most recent research advances in the subjects they teach. In
addition, they need to be familiar with the latest research on how something can be taught and learnt. Interdis-
ciplinary research on subject content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge provides the foundation
for developing teaching methods that can be adapted to suit different learners.

The aim is that teachers internalize a research-oriented attitude towards their work. This means that teachers
learn to take an analytical and open-minded approach to their work, and develop their teaching and learning
environments in a systematic way. (Niemi and Jakku-Sihvonen 2006, 40–41)

In the planning phase, understanding the meaning of the curriculum and defining educational
aims and goals form the basis of critical teacher thinking. The precise use of educational concepts
and the skill required to define and develop them further are important methodological issues. Creat-
ing the curriculum of their own school, based on the national frames, is one of the principles and
activities of Finnish teachers. This requires understanding how educational policy functions and
why educational decision-making is always normative.
Thinking and acting in the middle of an instructional process presupposes an understanding of
experimental and quasi-experimental reasoning in order to develop learning and other educational
outcomes as a result of teaching and studying. Understanding evidence presented in the research
literature demands knowledge of the trustworthiness of published research based on investigations.
Considering the process of teaching-studying-learning as action research presupposes metacognitive
thinking such as reflection and pedagogical thinking. Being able to develop their own activities, tea-
chers have to be capable to observe the ongoing instructional process and make appropriate ques-
tions to improve their own practice (Zeichner and Liston 2013).
In the evaluation phase, the challenge is to see to what extent the instructional process has suc-
ceeded, both daily and throughout the whole semester. On the individual level, teachers must assess
the degree of their students’ progress and grade them accordingly. To assess progress, knowledge
about achievement tests is needed, including how they are constructed and how reliable they are.
On the curricular level, experiences of realizing the curriculum are important for developing it in
the future. In this evaluation process, many kinds of research methods are useful.
In sum, to understand how to make the instructional process successful many kinds of knowledge
and research methods are needed. The way in which teachers can make use of research in their own
work is by acting like practitioner researchers (cf. Wall 2018). The consumer role in teachers’ work is to
be able to apply the evidence of research, while developing their own work is the producer role (see
Young 2001).
6 R. BYMAN ET AL.

Overview of the study programmes

The yearly intake for the class teacher programme leading to an MA degree is 120 students, of which
100 students study education and 20 students study educational psychology as their major subject.
Class teachers teach grades 1–6 in elementary schools. Kindergarten teachers study early childhood
education as their major subject, and the yearly intake for the bachelor’s programme is 120 students
and 20 for the MA programme. With a BA degree, kindergarten teachers can work in day care, teach-
ing children from 3 to 6 years old. With an MA degree, an early childhood specialist can work, for
example, as an administrator in the day-care sector. Special education teachers major in special edu-
cation and can teach in K-12 or adult education. Their yearly intake is 60 students. Subject teachers
who study in the Faculty of Education become home economics and handicraft teachers, majoring
either in education or in their own subject. They teach in grades 7–12 and in adult education. All
MA students must complete both a BA and an MA thesis. In the thesis they employ research skills,
conducting empirical studies following the rules of the educational research tradition.

Aims of the study

Our first aim is to investigate what students think about education as a branch of science, especially
whether education should be based on empirical or theoretical argumentation. Any discipline in
which scientific methods are used qualifies as a science. At the Department of Teacher Education
at the University of Helsinki, research methods courses follow the traditional division of quantitative
and qualitative methods. Our second aim is to study the student teachers’ perceptions of the value of
research methods. Our third aim is to investigate how students themselves see the need for meth-
odological studies during their education (cf. Daniel, Kumar, and Omar 2018).

Method
Sample and procedure
The present study took place at the Department of Teacher Education, University of Helsinki. The data
was gathered at the end of research methods courses that were common to all educational pro-
grammes. The sub-samples were not drawn from the same cohort, but all response groups were
elected to their study programmes with the same subject-based criteria and they all followed the
same subject-based curriculum during the data-gathering phase. The sub-samples (data) were gath-
ered between 2012 and 2018. The lecturers and the courses were the same across the data-gathering
period. A total of 459 responses were obtained. The response rate among sub-samples varied from
13% to 83%. All respondents answered the same questions (see Instrumentation). The majority of
participants were women, only 59 men taking part in the research.

Instrumentation
Our study employed a mixed-methods survey technique. Using what Johnson and Turner (2003, 304)
call intramethod mixing, we used both closed- and open-ended questions to expand the breadth and
depth of our study. The overall purpose was to provide an integrated perspective on what students
thought about their research methodology studies. We used an e-form questionnaire with closed-
ended questions based on instruments constructed by Murtonen (2005) and Murtonen et al.
(2008). The first four statements measured appreciation of empirical and theoretical methods in edu-
cational science. The following six items measured the appreciation of quantitative and qualitative
methods and the readiness to use these methods. The items were rated using a Likert-type scale
that included five categories: strongly disagree, disagree, undecided, agree, and strongly agree
(scoring 1–5). The background variables and their scales were: gender (0 = female, 1 = male),
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH & METHOD IN EDUCATION 7

educational programme (1 = Class Teacher Education, major subject education; 2 = Class Teacher
Education, major subject educational psychology; 3 = Early Childhood Education, Master’s degree
programme or kindergarten teacher education; 4 = Special Education as a major subject; and 5 =
Craft Teacher Education or Home Economics Teacher Education). Murtonen (2015) has shown that
students have certain difficulties in understanding what the terms empirical, theoretical, quantitative
and qualitative mean. Thus, at the beginning of our inventory, we briefly explained these terms.
According to Greene, Caracelli, and Graham (1989, 258), ‘In a complementarity mixed-method
study, qualitative and quantitative methods are used to measure overlapping but also different
facets of a phenomenon, yielding an enriched, elaborated understanding of that phenomenon’.
Thus, in order to obtain different but complementary data concerning what students thought about
their research methodology studies, all students also answered the following open-ended question:

. Why should students study research methods in their educational programme?

Data analyses
The analyses of data follow the suggestions of Creswell and Plano (2018). Quantitative and qualitative
data are first analysed separately. After that, interpretations of both databases are presented in the
discussion section of the article.

Quantitative analyses
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine whether there are any significant
differences between the means of five different educational programmes. The assumptions of
ANOVA were checked before conducting the analysis. The dependent variables were found to be
approximately normally distributed for each category of the independent variable (Groups 1–5,
see Table 1), except for the distribution of Item 5, which was leptokurtic (7.296) in Group 2. Although
it is a well-known fact that ANOVA is quite robust to violations of normality (e.g. Blanca et al. 2017),
Kruskal–Wallis H test was used to analyse Item 5. The assumption of homogeneity of variances was
violated in Item 4 (p=.048) and Item 9 (p = .029). Thus, instead of a normal ANOVA, Welch’s-test was
used to analyse these items. Paired sample t-test was used in theoretical/empirical and quantitative/
qualitative method comparisons.

Qualitative analyses
Students’ answers to open-ended question were analysed using qualitative content analysis, answers
being analysed according to the meaning they conveyed. We utilized both a concept- and a data-
based coding scheme in the analysis of the data (Schreier 2012). The theoretical coding scheme
was based on the works of Kansanen (2006, 2007) and the previous studies of Jyrhämä et al.
(2008) and Toom et al. (2008). In the analysis, the answers to the open-ended question were first
read through carefully several times. After reading the answers, we divided the text into units of
coding by using a thematic criterion (see Schreier 2012). After that we read and re-read the data
and categorized it into the following six categories:

. teachers need to read research literature about their own professional field,
. gives an ability to do one’s own research and produce research-based knowledge for practical
teaching,
. teaches scientific thinking,
. provides skills for teachers’ practical work,
. offers tools when writing a bachelor’s or a master’s thesis,
. is not necessary for the teacher’s practical work.
8 R. BYMAN ET AL.

Table 1. The means (neutral point = 3) and standard deviations for statements concerning research methodological views.
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5
(n = 245) (n = 31) (n = 98) (n = 33) (n = 52)
Item M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD F p
Item 1: The views of valued theorists are 3.93 0.71 4.16 0.78 4.07 0.67 3.91 0.63 3.55 0.79 5.27 <.001
very important for this branch of science
Item 2: Empirical methods are very 4.34 0.70 4.52 0.57 4.44 0.60 4.48 0.57 4.40 0.61 1.01 .400
important for this branch of science
Item 3: The most important findings of 2.86 0.95 2.81 1.01 2.92 0.88 2.76 1.06 2.59 0.89 1.04 .354
this branch of science are achieved by a
method that is based on theoretical
thinking
Item 4: The most important findings of 3.78 0.76 3.97 0.66 3.96 0.65 4.12 0.74 3.84 0.65 1.85a .098
this branch of science are achieved by
empirical studies
b
Item 5: Interesting knowledge for this 4.45 0.70 4.65 0.66 4.53 0.58 4.63 0.49 4.28 0.64 .082
branch of science is afforded by
qualitative methods
Item 6: Interesting knowledge for this 4.40 0.59 4.71 0.46 4.23 0.66 4.51 0.62 4.10 .71 6.69 <.001
branch of science is afforded by
quantitative methods
Item 7: It is interesting to study using 4.12 0.88 4.10 1.16 4.17 0.92 4.06 0.90 3.94 0.92 0.55 .696
qualitative methods
Item 8: It is interesting to study using 3.67 1.06 4.00 1.13 3.72 1.07 4.03 0.81 3.66 0.96 1.47 .211
quantitative methods
Item 9: Qualitative methods are easy 3.31 1.03 3.03 1.25 3.23 1.00 3.18 0.98 3.14 0.87 1.04a .405
Item 10: Quantitative methods are easy 2.45 0.99 3.13 1.12 2.65 0.91 2.72 0.85 2.68 1.00 3.94 .004
Group 1 = Class Teacher Education, major subject education; Group 2 = Class Teacher Education, major subject educational psychol-
ogy; Group 3 = Early Childhood Education, master’s degree programme or Kindergarten Teacher Education; Group 4 = Special
education as a major subject; Group 5 = Craft Teacher Education or Home Economics Teacher Education.
a
Welch’s-test.
b
Kruskal–Wallis H test.

By the end of this process, we had reached an interpretation that answered the question of how
students themselves see the need for methodological studies during their education.

Results
What students thought about education as a branch of science
Initially, analysis was carried out to examine differences among different educational programmes.
Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations of each educational programme in items 1–10.
Analysis of variance was used to investigate differences among educational programmes.
Students in all the educational programmes see empirical methods (Item 2) as important for edu-
cational science and they believe that the most important findings of their branch of science are
achieved by empirical studies (Item 4). However, all students seem to appreciate the thinking of
the valued theorists who have been mentioned during the studies but they do not believe that
important results are obtained by means of theoretical thinking. This trend was common to students
in all the educational programmes. However, there were statistically significant differences among
different educational programmes [F(4, 448) = 5.27, p < .001] in appreciation of the thinking of
valued theorists (Item 1). Students of Craft Teacher Education or Home Economics Teacher Education
(Group 5) valued the thinking of valued theorists least. According to Bonferroni post hoc tests, there
was a statistically significant difference between Group 5 and all other groups (p ≤ .006), apart from
students who took Special Education as a major subject (p = .258).
There is not a big difference in the appreciation of quantitative and qualitative research methods.
However, students see qualitative research methods as easier than quantitative research methods.
Moreover, there was a statistically significant difference among different educational programmes
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH & METHOD IN EDUCATION 9

concerning how easy (Item 10) students see quantitative research methods [F(4, 448) = 3.94, p = .004].
According to post hoc testing, there was a statistically significant difference between the two Class
Teacher Education programmes (p = .003). Students who majored in educational psychology felt that
quantitative research methods were easier than students whose major subject was education. There
were statistically significant differences between different educational programmes [F(4, 448) = 6.69,
p < .001] in the appreciation of quantitative research methods (Item 6). Class Teacher Education stu-
dents (major subject educational psychology) valued quantitative research methods most. According
to Bonferroni post hoc testing, there was a statistically significant difference (p = .016) between edu-
cational psychology students (Group 2) and students of Craft Teacher Education or Home Economics
Teacher Education (Group 5) as well as between educational psychology students (Group 2) and stu-
dents in the Early Childhood Education group (Group 3, p = .002). There was also a statistically highly
significant difference between educational psychology students and craft teacher education or home
economics teacher education students (p < .001).
To specify the observation of Table 1, paired samples t-test was used to compare students’
responses to questions concerning a preference for theoretical vs. empirical (Items 1–4), or qualitative
vs. quantitative (Items 5–10) methods in each educational programme. In the whole sample (N = 459),
the comparison theoretical vs. empirical methods resulted in statistically significant results in both
item pairs [Item 1 vs. Item 2, t(433) = −12.04; p < .001 and Item 3 vs. Item 4, t(433) = −17.09; p
< .001]. These results confirmed the previous observation that when compared to theoretical
methods, empirical methods were highly appreciated in the whole data, students who had Special
Education as a major subject especially highlighted this appreciation.
In the whole sample (N = 459) the comparison between quantitative vs. qualitative methods
resulted in the clear favouring of qualitative methods. Students consider that the most interesting
findings in education are obtained using qualitative methods [Item 5 vs. Item 6, t(433) = 3.82; p
< .001]. They also felt that it was more interesting to do research using qualitative methods than
with quantitative methods [Item 7 vs. Item 8, t(433) = 5.44; p < .001], and that qualitative methods
were easier to use than quantitative methods [Item 9 vs. Item 10, t(433) = 11.20; p < .001].
There were some exceptions to the general view at the subsample level. The results of both Class
Teacher Education groups revealed that there was not a statistically significant difference in the
answers to the statement ‘The most interesting findings in education are obtained with qualitat-
ive/quantitative methods’ [t(237)Group1 = 1.63; p = .104 and t(30)Group2 = −0.49; p = .625]. The same
result was also found in Group 4 [t(31) = 1.68; p = .103] and Group 5 [t(49) = 1.46; p = .151]. In fact,
the only group where this difference was statistically highly significant, was Group 3 (Early Childhood
Education) [t(95) = 4.44; p < .001]. Class Teacher Education students who had educational psychology
as a major subject (p = .728), students who had Special Education as a major subject (p = .889), and
Craft Teacher Education or Home Economics Teacher Education students (p = .175) felt that it would
be as interesting to do research using quantitative methods as it would be with qualitative methods.
Moreover, Class Teacher Education students who had educational psychology as their major subject
(p = .647) considered that quantitative methods were as easy to use as qualitative methods.

Students’ thoughts about the need to study research methods in their education
Three hundred and twenty-one respondents generated 509 units of coding, which we classified into
5 categories. In the following, we explain these categories. The sub-categories and their frequencies
are presented in Appendix. The examples are translations from Finnish into English.

Teachers need to read research literature in their own professional field

In this category, the student teachers described teachers as consumers of educational knowledge.
Methodological studies are needed to acquire an ability to read and estimate the source credibility
of educational articles and research reports. On the other hand, methodological knowledge is also
needed to make correct interpretations from research results. Students also realized that in the
10 R. BYMAN ET AL.

practical working situation teachers must update their knowledge. This process requires reading edu-
cational articles and books. Knowledge of research methods helps teachers to get acquainted with
new educational material. Some students emphasized that their methodological studies helped
them in particular to read quantitative studies.

Gives an ability to do one’s own research and produce research-based knowledge for
practical teaching
Student teachers considered that their methodological studies made it possible to conduct their own
enquiries at work. Some students also emphasized that knowledge about scientific methods is
necessary for postgraduate students. Four respondents felt that methodological studies gave them
the tools to evaluate teaching matters in school.

Teaches scientific thinking

In this category, students thought that methodological studies belonged to academic common
knowledge, and because teacher education was a university subject it was necessary to study
research methodology. Thirty-two students also felt that methodological studies developed scientific
and logical thinking. Four students directly referred to the fact that research-based teacher education
required the study of research methodology.

Provides skills for teachers’ practical work

Students considered that their methodological studies helped them in their everyday work at school.
These studies gave them tools by which to observe pupils and to reflect on their own work as a
teacher. Nowadays, teachers must also interpret different kinds of statistics at their work, and meth-
odological studies help them to do this.

Offers tools when writing a bachelor’s or a master’s thesis

In this category, students felt that methodological studies were completely unnecessary, or were only
necessary for writing a bachelor’s or a master’s thesis. However, only 12 out of 459 students felt that
writing a bachelor’s or a master’s thesis is the only reason for studying research methods. Rather than
methodological studies, more practice was needed.

Is not necessary for the teacher’s practical work

In this category, many students directly compared practice and the learning of research methods.
They felt that the educational programme should have more practice and that the learning of
research methods was not necessary for a teacher’s practical work.

Discussion
Theoretical vs. empirical research: Which is better for education? Students in all the educational pro-
grammes seemed to have a clear answer to this question. Although there were differences within the
educational programmes, all students seemed to prefer empirical methods to theoretical methods as
a way of acquiring educational knowledge. Thus, although student teachers appreciated the views of
the best-known theoreticians, they felt that education was an empirical science. This overall result is
in line with the results of Murtonen (2005), but may also reflect the fact that most of the research
method teaching focused on empirical methods teaching. However, in our study, there were some
differences among educational programmes concerning views on empirical vs. theoretical research.
Students who had Special Education as a major subject strongly emphasized the difference between
theoretical and empirical methods. These students considered that in special education the most
important findings were obtained by using empirical methods. This result may be explained by
the knowledge base of special education. Some researchers have argued (e.g. Skrtic 1991; Thomas
and Loxley 2007) that special education as a system lacks a sustainable theoretical basis. Saloviita
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH & METHOD IN EDUCATION 11

(2006) has even claimed that there is no such thing as special education expert knowledge. The core
of the special education programme in Finland is concerned with learning difficulties, professional
collaboration and teaching practice (Hausstätter Sarromaa and Takala 2008). Thus, data gathered
by empirical methods are emphasized in special education. This fact may explain our result that stu-
dents who had Special Education as a major subject strongly emphasized the difference between
theoretical and empirical methods and were in favour of empirical methods.
As noted, all students in our data seemed to prefer empirical methods to theoretical methods as a
way of acquiring educational knowledge. However, it would be interesting to study this relationship
in the future, because in the current curriculum (since autumn 2018–) most students who do a bache-
lor’s thesis include a literature review. This represents a significant change with the previous curricu-
lum, and the use of a literature review as means to gather educational knowledge may change
students’ conceptions concerning theoretical vs. empirical research.
An aversion to quantitative methods was found in the present study. This result supports the
findings of Murtonen (2005), Murtonen et al. (2008) and Rautopuro (2010). However, there were
some exceptions to this overall view. It seems that although the students were exposed to the
same education on quantitative and qualitative methods and they sat in the same lectures, the stu-
dents thought differently about quantitative and qualitative methods. Thus, it seems that the knowl-
edge base affects how students see quantitative and qualitative methods. Since 1980, most
educational research in Finland has been done using qualitative methods (Rautopuro 2010), and
women in education, in particular, seem to prefer qualitative methods (Kivirauma 1997). This paradig-
matic change in education may explain the aversion to quantitative methods among students whose
knowledge base is in education. Rather than education, the knowledge base of educational psychol-
ogy is in psychology, where most of the research produced in Finland and globally has been carried
out using quantitative methods. Thus, in our study, Class Teacher Education students whose major
subject was educational psychology did not feel any aversion to quantitative methods. One
reason for an aversion to quantitative methods may also be that students see qualitative methods
as easier than quantitative methods in accordance with their methodological education (cf. Rauto-
puro 2010). In our study, almost all students except the Class Teacher Education students who had
educational psychology as a major subject had this same view. It also seems possible that students
do not perceive the difficulty of creative deduction that is involved in the use of qualitative methods.
In the research of Tuominen, Rautopuro, and Puhakka (2009), only a couple of class teachers con-
sidered that research skills were relevant for their work. In the Murtonen et al. (2008) study about half
of the students were unsure whether they would need research and statistics skills in their future
work. However, in our study, only 20 out of 459 students felt that teachers did not need research
skills in their practical work, and only 103 out of 459 students considered that research methods
were only necessary when writing a bachelor’s or a master’s thesis. Our qualitative data revealed
that students consider that this kind of knowledge helps them to reflect on and study their own
work as well as do research in their own school class (cf. Aspfors and Eklund 2017). To carry out
this aim, knowledge about qualitative research methodology seems to be more important than
knowledge about quantitative research methodology. Kansanen et al. (2000) have described the
kind of teachers who are autonomous, reflective and capable of using research in their teaching
as ‘pedagogically thinking teachers’.
Most of the students in our study felt that the knowledge of research methods mattered when
they encountered new research results. In Finland, a great deal of popularized knowledge about
school education exists. This knowledge is either not based on research findings or is only very
loosely based on these findings. Thus, students thought that the methodological education they
acquired during their studies helped them to critically evaluate educational literature and gave
them the ability to read first-hand references. This result is in line with the results of our previous
study (Byman et al. 2009) according to which students have a positive attitude towards research-
based teacher education. Students seem to think that inaccurate knowledge may lead to imprecise
applications and end in fallacies at work. Students want to evaluate research and texts they read
12 R. BYMAN ET AL.

thoughtfully rather than accept them without question. Pallas (2001; see also Vialle, Hall, and Booth
1997) has described these kinds of research users as consumers of research. On the other hand, stu-
dents in our study saw themselves as what Pallas called producers of research. Students felt that a
knowledge of research methods gave them a readiness to conduct research in their work. Kansanen
(2014) and Maaranen (2010) have referred to these kinds of researchers and research as practitioner
researcher and practitioner research. Teacher’s practitioner research resembles action research, the
aim of the research being to develop knowledge and skills and to become more effective as a
teacher. Kansanen (2004, 213) has emphasized that this kind of continuous interaction between
research studies and practice is essential to develop research-based thinking for everyday teaching.
Thus, the aim of a teacher is professional development rather than publishing his or her findings.
Both our quantitative and qualitative data showed that most of the student teachers saw some
value in studying research methods. However, 20 students noted that studying research methods
was not necessary for the practical work of teachers. Moreover, 12 students felt that studying research
methods offered only tools for writing bachelor’s and master’s theses. These results suggest that in
our research method teaching we should continue to emphasize the value of research methods for
pedagogic knowledge production (cf. Nind and Lewthwaite 2018).
Finnish society has trust in education, schools, and teachers (e.g. Toom and Husu 2016). As men-
tioned at the beginning of this article, Finnish teachers are highly educated professionals who must
make independent decisions from daily practices in order to develop and implement the curriculum.
They need higher-order thinking skills in order to be able to meet the demands of their work.
The Finnish tradition of research-based teacher education, which culminates in the writing of a
master’s thesis, also seems to be becoming more popular globally (e.g. Råde 2019). The Finnish tra-
dition also emphasizes the evidence-based model in its educational institutions. The role of research
in the field of education is extremely important in the current era of alternative truths. Thus, we hope
that discussions regarding Finnish tradition of research-based teacher education also intrigue the
wider audience globally.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID
Reijo Byman http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2415-7478

References
Aho, E., K. Pitkänen, and P. Sahlberg. 2006. “Policy Development and Reform Principles of Basic and Secondary Education
in Finland Since 1968.” World Bank.
Aspfors, J., and G. Eklund. 2017. “Explicit and Implicit Perspectives on Research-Based Teacher Education: Newly
Qualified Teachers’ Experiences in Finland.” Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy
43 (5): 400–413.
Beach, D. 2011. “Education Science in Sweden: Promoting Research for Teacher Education or Weakening Its Scientific
Foundations?” Education Inquiry 2 (2): 207–220.
Blanca, M. J., R. Alarcón, J. Arnau, R. Bono, and R. Bendayan. 2017. “Non-Normal Data: Is ANOVA Still a Valid Option?”
Psicothema 29 (4): 552–557.
Byman, R., L. Krokfors, A. Toom, K. Maaranen, R. Jyrhämä, H. Kynäslahti, and P. Kansanen. 2009. “Educating Inquiry-
Oriented Teachers: Students’ Attitudes and Experiences Towards Research-Based Teacher Education.” Educational
Research and Evaluation 15 (1): 79–92.
Clark, C. M., and P. L. Peterson. 1986. “Teachers’ Thought Processes.” In Handbook of Research on Teaching, edited by M. C.
Wittrock, 3rd ed., 255–296. New York: Macmillan.
Clark, C. M., and R. J. Yinger. 1977. “Research on Teacher Thinking.” Curriculum Inquiry 7 (4): 279–304.
Cochran-Smith, M., and K. M. Zeichner, eds. 2005. Studying Teacher Education: The Report of the AERA Panel on Research
and Teacher Education. Washington, DC: AERA & Lawrence Erlbaum.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH & METHOD IN EDUCATION 13

Creswell, J. W., and C. V. L. Plano. 2018. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Daniel, B., V. Kumar, and N. Omar. 2018. “Postgraduate Conception of Research Methodology: Implications for Learning
and Teaching.” International Journal of Research & Method in Education 41 (2): 220–236.
Darling-Hammond, L. 2006. “Constructing 21st-Century Teacher Education.” Journal of Teacher Education 57 (3): 300–314.
Elbaz, F. 1983. Teacher Thinking: A Study of Practical Knowledge. London: Croom Helm.
Elliott, J. 1991. Educational Research for Educational Change. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Ercikan, K., and W.-M. Roth. 2006. “What Good is Polarizing Research into Qualitative and Quantitative?” Educational
Researcher 35 (5): 14–23.
Greene, J. C., V. J. Caracelli, and W. F. Graham. 1989. “Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation
Designs.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 11 (3): 255–274.
Griffiths, R. 2004. “Knowledge Production and the Research-Teaching Nexus: The Case of the Built Environment
Disciplines.” Studies in Higher Education 29 (6): 709–726.
Hattie, J. A. C. 2009. Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. London: Routledge.
Hausstätter Sarromaa, R., and M. Takala. 2008. “The Core of Special Teacher Education: A Comparison of Finland and
Norway.” European Journal of Special Needs Education 23 (2): 121–134.
Hsu, T. 2005. “Research Methods and Data Analysis Procedures Used by Educational Researchers.” International Journal of
Research & Method in Education 28 (2): 109–133.
Jakku-Sihvonen, R., and H. Niemi, eds. 2006. Research-Based Teacher Education in Finland. Research in Educational Sciences
25. Turku: Finnish Educational Research Association.
Jakku-Sihvonen, R., and H. Niemi, eds. 2007. Education as a Societal Contributor: Reflections by Finnish Educationalists.
Frankfurt-am-Maim: Peter Lang.
Johnson, R. B., and L. A. Turner. 2003. “Data Collection Strategies in Mixed Methods Research.” In Handbook of Mixed
Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, edited by A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie, 297–319. Newbury Park: Sage.
Jyrhämä, R., H. Kynäslahti, L. Krokfors, R. Byman, K. Maaranen, A. Toom, and P. Kansanen. 2008. “The Appreciation and
Realisation of Research-Based Teacher Education: Finnish Students’ Experiences of Teacher Education.” European
Journal of Teacher Education 31 (1): 1–16.
Kansanen, P. 2004. “The Role of General Education in Teacher Education.” Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 2 (7): 2–12.
Kansanen, P. 2006. “Constructing a Research-Based Program in Teacher Education.” In Competence Oriented Teacher
Training: Old Research Demands and New Pathways, edited by F. K. Oser, F. Achtenhagen, and U. Renold, 11–22.
Rotterdam: Sense.
Kansanen, P. 2007. “Research-Based Teacher Education.” In Education as a Societal Contributor, edited by R. Jakku-
Sihvonen and H. Niemi, 131–146. Frankfurt-am-Main: Peter Lang.
Kansanen, P. 2014. “Teaching as a Master’s Level Profession in Finland: Theoretical Reflections and Practical Solutions.” In
Workplace Learning in Teacher Education, edited by O. McNamara, J. Murray, and M. Jones, 279–292. Dordrecht:
Springer.
Kansanen, P. 2015. “The Strengths of Finnish Teacher Training.” Academia Scientiarum Fennica, 64–69. Helsinki.
Kansanen, P., K. Tirri, M. Meri, L. Krokfors, J. Husu, and R. Jyrhämä. 2000. Teachers’ Pedagogical Thinking: Theoretical
Landscapes, Practical Challenges. New York: Peter Lang.
Kivirauma, J. 1997. “Faktorianalyysin kautta teemahaastatteluun – Suomalaisen kasvatustieteen paradigmamuutokset
1900-luvulla väitöskirjojen valossa.” In Suomalaisen kasvatustieteen historia – Lyhyt oppimäärä, edited by J.
Kivirauma and R. Rinne, 5–61. Turku: Turun yliopisto. Kasvatustieteen laitoksen tutkimuksia A:182. From Factor
Analysis to Thematic Interview – Paradigm Changes in Finnish Educational Sciences in 20th-Century Doctoral Theses.
Krokfors, L. 2007. “Two-Fold Role of Reflective Pedagogical Practise in Research-Based Teacher Education.” In Education as
a Societal Contributor, edited by R. Jakku-Sihvonen and H. Niemi, 147–159. Frankfurt-am-Main: Peter Lang.
Krokfors, L., H. Kynäslahti, K. Stenberg, A. Toom, K. Maaranen, R. Jyrhämä, R. Byman, and P. Kansanen. 2011. “Investigating
Teacher Educators’ Views on Research-Based Teacher Education.” Teaching Education 22 (1): 1–13.
Lonka, K. 2018. Phenomenal Learning from Finland. Helsinki: Edita.
Maaranen, K. 2009. “Practitioner Research as Part of Professional Development in Initial Teacher Education.” Teacher
Development 13 (3): 219–237.
Maaranen, K. 2010. “Teacher Students’ MA Theses – A Gateway to Analytic Thinking About Teaching? A Case Study of
Finnish Primary School Teachers.” Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 54 (5): 487–500.
Murtonen, M. 2005. “University Students’ Research Orientations: Do Negative Attitudes Exist Toward Quantitative
Methods?” Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 49 (3): 263–280.
Murtonen, M. 2015. “University Students’ Understanding of the Concepts Empirical, Theoretical, Qualitative and
Quantitative Research.” Teaching in Higher Education 20 (7): 684–698.
Murtonen, M., E. Olkinuora, P. Tynjälä, and E. Lehtinen. 2008. “‘Do I Need Research Skills in Working Life?’ – Students’
Motivation and Difficulties Experienced in Quantitative Methods Courses.” Higher Education 56 (5): 599–612.
Niemi, H. 2017. “Teacher Professional Development in Finland: Towards a More Holistic Approach.” Psychology, Society &
Education 7 (3): 279–294.
14 R. BYMAN ET AL.

Niemi, H., and R. Jakku-Sihvonen. 2006. “Research-Based Teacher Education.” In Research-Based Teacher Education in
Finland – Reflections by Finnish Teacher Educators, edited by R. Jakku-Sihvonen and H. Niemi, 31–50. Turku: Finnish
Educational Research Association.
Niemi, H., A. Toom, and A. Kallioniemi, eds. 2012. The Miracle of Education: The Principles and Practices of Teaching and
Learning in Finnish Schools. Rotterdam: Sense.
Nind, M., and S. Lewthwaite. 2018. “Methods That Teach: Developing Pedagogic Research Methods, Developing
Pedagogy.” International Journal of Research and Method in Education 41 (4): 398–410.
Pallas, A. M. 2001. “Preparing Education Doctoral Students for Epistemological Diversity.” Educational Researcher 30 (5):
6–11.
Rautopuro, J. 2010. Sisyfoksen kivi? Tilastollisten menetelmien opetus ja oppiminen kasvatustieteissä. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylän
yliopisto. Koulutuksen tutkimuslaitos. Tutkimuksia 27. Sisyphean Challenge? Teaching and Learning of Statistical
Methods in Educational Sciences.
Renninger, A., and S. Hidi. 2016. The Power of Interest for Motivation and Engagement. New York, NY: Routledge.
Råde, A. 2019. “Professional Formation and the Final Thesis in European Teacher Education: A Fusion of Academic and
Professional Orientation.” Education Inquiry 10 (3): 226–242.
Saari, A., S. Salmela, and J. Vilkkilä. 2014. “Governing Autonomy: Subjectivity, Freedom, and Knowledge in Finnish
Curriculum Discourse.” In International Handbook of Curriculum Research, edited by W. F. Pinar, 2nd ed., 183–200.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Sahlberg, P. 2011. Finnish Lessons: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland? New York: Teachers
College Press.
Saloviita, T. 2006. “Erityisopetus ja inkluusio.” [Special Education and Inclusion.] Kasvatus 37 (4): 326–342.
Schiefele, U. 2009. “Situational and Individual Interest.” In Handbook of Motivation at School, edited by K. Wentzel and A.
Wigfield, 197–222. London: Routledge.
Schön, D. A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.
Schreier, M. 2012. Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Simola, H. 2015. The Finnish Education Mystery: Historical and Sociological Essays on Schooling in Finland. London:
Routledge.
Skrtic, T. 1991. Behind Special Education: A Critical Analysis of Professional Culture and School Organization. Denver: Love.
Strömnes, ÅL, and N. Sövik. 1987. Teachers’ Thinking: Perspectives and Research. Trondheim: Tapir.
Thomas, G., and A. Loxley. 2007. Deconstructing Special Education and Constructing Inclusion. 2nd ed. Maidenhead: Open
University Press/McGraw-Hill.
Tirri, K. 2014. “The Last 40 Years in Finnish Teacher Education.” Journal of Education for Teaching 40 (5): 600–609.
Toom, A., and J. Husu. 2016. “Finnish Teachers as ‘Makers of the Many’: Balancing Between Broad Pedagogical Freedom
and Responsibility.” In Miracle of Education: The Principles and Practices of Teaching and Learning in Finnish Schools,
edited by H. Niemi, A. Toom, and A. Kallioniemi, 2nd rev. ed., 41–55. Rotterdam: Sense.
Toom, A., L. Krokfors, H. Kynäslahti, K. Stenberg, K. Maaranen, J. Jyrhämä, R. Byman, and P. Kansanen. 2008. “Exploring the
Essential Characteristics of Research-Based Teacher Education from the Viewpoint of Teacher Educators.” A paper
presentation at the TEPE Conference (Teacher Education Policy in Europe), Ljubljana, Slovenia, February 21–23.
Toom, A., H. Kynäslahti, L. Krokfors, R. Jyrhämä, R. Byman, K. Stenberg, K. Maaranen, and P. Kansanen. 2010. “The
Experiences of Research-Based Approach of Teacher Education: Suggestions for the Future Policies.” European
Journal of Education 45 (2): 331–344.
Tuominen, V., J. Rautopuro, and A. Puhakka. 2009. “Another Brick in the Wall? Association between Teachers’ Study
Success, Academic Orientation and Labour Market Situation.” Paper presented at the ISATT 2009 Conference,
Rovaniemi, University of Lapland. SlideShare. https://www.slideshare.net/tuomine/another-brick-in-the-wall.
Vialle, W., N. Hall, and T. Booth. 1997. “Teaching Research and Inquiry in Undergraduate Teacher-Education Programmes.”
Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 25 (2): 129–140.
Wall, K. 2018. “Building a Bridge Between Pedagogy and Methodology: Emergent Thinking on Notions of Quality in
Practitioner Enquiry.” Scottish Educational Review 50 (2): 3–22.
Westbury, I., S.-E. Hansen, P. Kansanen, and O. Björkvist. 2005. “Teacher Education for Research-Based Practice in
Expanded Roles: Finland’s Experience.” Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 49 (5): 475–485.
Young, L. J. 2001. “Border Crossing and Other Journeys: Re-Envisioning the Doctoral Preparation of Educational
Researchers.” Educational Researcher 30 (5): 3–5.
Zeichner, K. 2010. “Rethinking the Connections Between Campus Courses and Field Experiences in College- and
University-Based Teacher Education.” Journal of Teacher Education 61 (1–2): 89–99.
Zeichner, K., and D. P. Liston. 2013. Reflective Teaching: An Introduction. New York: Routledge.

Appendix
Students’ conceptions of why they should study research methods in their educational programme, categories and sub-
categories (frequencies of sub-categories in brackets)
Categories
Category 1: Teachers need to read
research literature in their own
professional field
Category 2: Gives an ability to do one’s
own research, to produce one’s own
research-based knowledge in teaching
Category 3: Teaches scientific thinking
Category 4: Provides skills for teachers’
own practical work
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH & METHOD IN EDUCATION
Sub-categories and their
frequencies
The ability to critically evaluate the
reliability of a research (64)
The ability to understand the
research of the field (66)
The ability to interpret research
findings correctly (19)
The ability to utilize the research
findings in his or her job (7)
The ability to absorb research in
order to maintain competence
(15)
The ability to utilize the research
findings in order to improve his or
her own teaching (13)
The ability to read quantitative and
qualitative research (4)
Makes it possible to do research at
work (48)
Makes it possible to study one’s
own work and to develop it
through research (17)
Makes it possible to continue as a
researcher (13)
Provides tools to evaluate one’s
own teaching (4)
Belongs to academic common
knowledge (38)
Something that research-based
teaching demands (4)
Develops scientific thinking (32)
Teaches analytical thinking (6)
Observation of the classroom (8)
Use in teacher’s work (14)
15
Examples
So that you can read critically new research
information.
The ability to understand research findings
requires methodological literacy.
Of course, when you read studies it is good if you
can interpret the results of the study.
So that you can understand new research
findings and utilize those findings on your own
work.
My opinion is that it good for a teacher to follow
the research of his or her research field in order
to maintain competence.
Everyone at work should get acquainted with
new knowledge and should have an ability to
read and evaluate research findings in order to
develop his or her teaching.
Especially the mastery of statistical analysis can
be an important trump card at work. Research
and reports are also done outside the
university, especially using quantitative
methods.
As many as possible do research at work, I hope.
It is very important that a teacher is exploratory,
and in his or her job is a critically reflecting
teacher. I consider that research methods give
a teacher the means to investigate the
strengths of the class and the school as well as
deal with problems and practice.
… and you can always continue as a
researcher.
Provides tools to do your own research and
evaluate your own teaching.
To know the fundamentals of your own field’s
research methodology is part of the common
knowledge of every academically educated
person.
Research-based teacher education demands that
students acquaint themselves with doing
research also from the viewpoint of research
methodology.
Develops scientific thinking.
It develops our thinking ability and we get a
deeper conception of education and science
generally.
It is also important to know how to observe one’s
own class.
Especially with a qualitative methodology a
teacher can use it in everyday work when he or
she wants be acquainted with his or her class/
work community etc. more deeply, even
though he or she is not doing a real research
study.
(Continued)
16 R. BYMAN ET AL.
Continued.
Categories
Category 5: Offers tools when writing
Bachelor’s or Master’s theses
Category 6: Is not necessary for the
teacher’s practical work
Sub-categories and their
frequencies Examples
Research skills teaching to students The teacher also develops transferable skills to
(3) teach his or her pupils the means to
exploratory learning.
Self-monitoring of one’s own Gives tools … to evaluate one’s own teaching.
teaching (1)
Interpretation of work-related You need these skills at work, because they make
statistical data (10) statistics about children, school attendance
etc., especially in administrative positions you
need skills in making a budget, calculating
parity, etc.
(103) So that you can do your Bachelor’s and Master’s
theses.
(20) In my opinion, it is not necessary at all for an
upcoming home economics teachers to learn
research methods.