The Role of Research Activity in the Formation of the Methodological Culture of Future Teachers of Primary Education

Kunduz Alimova; Gulmira  Zhapbarova; Aliya  Kosshygulova; Zhazira Abdullaeva; Sazhila Nurzhanova

doi:10.48161/qaj.v6n3a2439

Authors

Kunduz Alimova Faculty of Pedagogy and Psychology, Department of Primary Education, Abai Kazakh National Pedagogical University, Almaty 050010, Republic of Kazakhstan; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7183-3964
Gulmira Zhapbarova Faculty of Pedagogical and Humanitarian Education, Department of Preschool and Primary Education, Zh. A. Tashenev University, Shymkent 160000, Republic of Kazakhstan; https://orcid.org/0009-0002-9258-0913
Aliya Kosshygulova Faculty of Pedagogy and Psychology, Department of Primary Education, Abai Kazakh National Pedagogical University, Almaty 050010, Republic of Kazakhstan; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7928-0505
Zhazira Abdullaeva Faculty of Pedagogical and Humanitarian Education, Department of Pedagogy and Psychology, Zh. A. Tashenev University, Shymkent, Republic of Kazakhstan; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4074-4269
Sazhila Nurzhanova Abai Kazakh National Pedagogical University https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6856-211X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.48161/qaj.v6n3a2439

Keywords:

Methodological culture, Research activity, Teacher education, Master’s students, Evidence-informed practice, Mixed methods, Kazakhstan.

Abstract

This study examined the role of research activity in the development of the methodological culture of master’s students preparing to become primary education teachers. In this study, methodological culture was operationalised as a composite of methodological knowledge, analytical–reflective skills, and evidence-informed justification of pedagogical decisions. The research used a quasi-experimental two-site nonequivalent-groups design within a sequential explanatory mixed-methods framework, with two measurement points (T0–T1) and without a no-treatment control group. The sample included 120 master’s students from two Kazakhstani universities: Abai Kazakh National Pedagogical University (n = 55) and Zh. A. Tashenov University (n = 65). The intervention consisted of a 16-week research activity programme embedded in coursework and supported by tutoring, seminars on data visualisation, academic writing, and research ethics. Quantitative change was assessed using a 25-item diagnostic test (0–100; Cronbach’s α = 0.84). In the Abai sample, scores increased from 44.2 to 65.4 (Δ = 21.2, p < .001, d_z = 1.57); in the Tashenov sample, scores increased from 32.6 to 52.1 (Δ = 19.5, p < .001, d_z = 1.30). Baseline-adjusted ANCOVA showed a significant site effect at post-test, F(1,117) = 62.5, p < .001, ηp² = 0.35, with an adjusted mean difference of 10.2 points in favour of the Abai sample. Qualitative data from interviews, reflective essays, and observation protocols were used to explain the mechanisms of change and implementation conditions. The results suggest that systematic research activity, when supported by explicit quality criteria and mentoring, is associated with stronger evidence-informed reasoning, more confident data interpretation, and greater reflective regulation of professional decisions.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Diery, A., Knogler, M., & Seidel, T. (2020). Evidence-based practice in higher education: Teacher educators’ attitudes, challenges, and uses. Frontiers in Education, 5, 62.

Diery, A., Knogler, M., & Seidel, T. (2021). Supporting evidence-based practice through teacher education: A profile analysis of teacher educators’ perceived challenges and possible solutions. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 2, 100056.

Matjašič, N., & Vogrinc, J. (2024). Research competence of pre-service teachers: A systematic literature review. European Journal of Educational Research, 13(2), 877–891.

van Katwijk, L., Berry, A., Jansen, E., & van Veen, K. (2019). “It’s important, but I’m not going to keep doing it!” Perceived purposes, learning outcomes, and conditions for pre-service teacher research among educators and pre-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 86, 102868.

van Katwijk, L., Jansen, E., & van Veen, K. (2022). Development of an inquiry stance? Perceptions of preservice teachers and teacher educators toward preservice teacher inquiry in Dutch primary teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 73(3), 286–300.

Jeune, N., Juhel, J., Dessus, P., & Atal, I. (2024). Six factors facilitating teachers’ use of research: An experimental factorial survey of educational stakeholders’ perspectives. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1368565.

Mausethagen, S., Hermansen, H., Afdal, H., Lorentzen, M., & Holmeide, H. (2025). A systematic critical review of research on ‘research use’ in education: Towards more profession-sensitive conceptualisations. Educational Research Review, 49, 100740.

Puustinen, M., Säntti, J., Koski, A., & Tammi, T. (2018). Teaching: A practical or research-based profession? Teacher candidates’ approaches to research-based teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 74, 170–179.

Valle, A. M., Pajchel, K., Hansén, S. E., Orset, A. K., & Holand, A. M. (2025). Teacher educators’ understanding of research-based teacher education. Educational Research, 67(2), 152–169.

Afdal, H. W., & Spernes, K. (2018). Designing and using research-based teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 74, 215–228.

Brew, A., & Saunders, C. (2020). Making sense of research-based teacher education: A qualitative analysis of student teacher experiences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 87, 102935.

Greisel, M., Wekerle, C., Wilkes, T., Stark, R., & Kollar, I. (2023). Pre-service teachers’ evidence-informed reasoning: Do attitudes, subjective norms and self-efficacy facilitate the use of scientific theories to analyze teaching problems? Psychology Learning & Teaching, 22(1), 20–38.

Hornstein, J., Greisel, M., & Kollar, I. (2025). Promoting pre-service teachers’ evidence-informed reasoning through peer feedback: Effects on the quality of evidence-informed reasoning. Instructional Science. Advance online publication.

Joram, E., Gabriele, A. J., & Walton, K. (2020). What influences teachers’ “buy-in” of research? Teachers’ beliefs about the applicability of educational research to their practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 88, 102980.

Nägel, L., Bleck, V., & Lipowsky, F. (2023). “Research findings and daily teaching practice are worlds apart”—Predictors and consequences of scepticism toward the relevance of scientific content for teaching practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 121, 103911.

Reuter, T., & Leuchter, M. (2023). Pre-service teachers’ latent profile transitions in the evaluation of evidence. Teaching and Teacher Education, 132, 104248.

Contreras, N., Liesa, E., & Giralt-Romeu, M. (2024). How pre-service teachers change their view of forms of inquiry after participating in an inquiry-based practicum. Teaching and Teacher Education, 140, 104478.

Gussen, L., Fach, G., Klatte, M., & Sälzer, C. (2023). Supporting pre-service teachers in developing research competence: The effect of a combined online module and a practicum. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1197938.

Gaussel, M., Chaptal, A., Déléage, A., Bakhti, K., & Moussa, F. (2021). Teachers’ attitudes towards evidence-based practice: The role of trust, innovation climate, and perceived support. International Journal of Educational Research, 112, 101810.

Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children (M. Cook, Trans.). International Universities Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.