As many of the extracts above already illustrate, peer exchanges appeared important during the individual research processes, providing both emotional and practical support. Exploratory Practice appeared as an inspiring alternative for many, since – as one of the pioneers of EP, Judith Hanks has pointed out (2015: 612) – EP does not pull practitioners away from their instructional responsibilities but allows research in the form of mutual development together with learners: see extracts (5) and (6).

The final, open Seminar Day presentations at the end of the course and the final reflection reports illuminated the fact that all teachers had been involved in a meaningful process in terms of professional development. The combination of formal support (counselling sessions and organized peer group sessions together with research literature) has played a role here. On the basis of my own diary, counselling sessions seem to have been particularly important for those participants who shared less with colleagues. In the final reflection reports, the support (peers, counselling) and the meaning of diary writing as a reflection tool has been considered important in the individual processes of research and, ultimately, in the process of development as a teacher; see extracts 7–9 for examples.

For some of the teachers, research engagement in teaching development was new and initially something quite stressful. Evidently, there have been moments of uncertainty, but in the end, the experience was fruitful as extract 9 from “Annie’s” reflection report indicates:

Traditionally, teacher research in Language Centres has been a complex issue due to the strong profile of a teaching institution. Although the benefits of teacher research have been widely understood and documented, there are still hurdles, as briefly discussed at the beginning of this report. Vieira (2010: 14) has referred to teachers as “intellectual agents of change”, and in this vein one can only agree on the importance of supporting reflection and research engagement of practitioners. The benefits range from enthusiasm and motivation to increasing self-esteem and quality of teaching. This report focused on a formal context, a University Pedagogy course module within which language teachers had a systematically supported opportunity to carry out a teaching development process involving research engagement. Teachers report having obtained new ways of seeing and talking about their work (as echoed in previous teacher research literature, e.g. Borg 2010, 2013; Borg and Sanchez 2015a; Lehtonen et al. 2015b) and engaging themselves in a professional development practice in which research plays a most natural role.

Practitioners’ engagement with and in research can also fight the challenge of research and teaching practices developing distinct from each other. Little (2016) has argued that the so called social turn in theories of L2 acquisition has failed to challenge the mainstream pedagogical tradition. Similar observations have been reported by, for example, Dufva et al. (2011) and Vaattovaara (2016). This, one can argue, is due largely to the distinctiveness of the research and teaching professions. As a solution, Little (2016) proposes Exploratory Practice as an inclusive learning environment, and this is suggested also by the present case study of the UniPeda ALMS course. EP is a form of research which potentially increases the quality of life of both learners and teachers (for full analysis of EP, see Allwright and Hanks 2009). For teachers, this form of practitioner research offers a possibility for deepening their understanding of pedagogical and learning processes in a personally meaningful and also relatively easy way, while putting the practitioner into the role of critical inquirer. Connection to research (literature) through engagement in research makes the research literature personal and worthwhile.

Borg and Sanchez (2015b: 3) have listed a number of preconditions for teacher research, starting from the understanding of what research is, and covering factors such as motivation and skills, as well as institutional resources and support. Recognizing the range of all the different challenges, the course discussed in the present report suggests that there are two elements that are initially important for personal satisfaction in research engagement:

• –

  Time: moments for contextual reflection (at least short but regular periods of time) in order to make sense of the research literature and carry out the individual development/research process in the local context;

• –

  Sense of community: sharing the process with other colleagues.

As mentioned earlier, previous experience in research does not seem necessary, and as Borg and Sanchez (2015b: 3) also emphasize, the conditions need not be perfect in order for language teachers to become research-engaged. On the basis of our local example presented above, it is also not as important to have colleagues sharing the same focus of interest as it is to have colleagues around engaged in a similar work process, i.e., research engagement (of some kind). Provided that a supportive community emerges, the requisite time also seems to emerge. The very first steps might be easier to take if “research” is discussed rather as “research informed professional development”. On the level of attitudes, this seems to make a difference among both language teachers as well as the university management.

The University of Helsinki Language Centre has a long tradition of supporting research engagement, and frameworks for doing so, and the fruits are evident (see Lehtonen et al. 2015a). Although there is no complete agreement on whether research needs to be published in order to be counted as research (see Wyatt et al. 2016 for this discussion), the University of Helsinki LC has worked towards the goal of a research-engaged unit of the University through, among other things, the institution’s own publication series. ² For some strands of professional development, writing is also an essential tool (Vieira 2010; Bradley et al. 2016). While the LC is gaining a reputation as an expert organization engaged in research, a growing number of the LC instructors have adopted the identity of practitioner researcher. It is up to Language Centres to encourage bottom-up development interests and find ways to support practitioner research activities. Fostering collegiality and a community of research-engaged practitioners is, however, a good investment. A research-engaged community of practice is a powerful agent in challenging pedagogical traditions that are in need of reassessment.

I would like to express my gratitude to the UP5 2015‒2016 ALMS course community for enabling this exploration, and special thanks to Leena Karlsson, Satu von Boehm and Fergal Bradley for supporting my own learning process in counselling and for helping to develop the UniPeda ALMS course module.