







































 Ahmed 16 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 10 Number 1 (2025): 16–29 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v10i1.649 

Theoretical Analysis, Classroom Practice, Opinion Essays 

 

Too Much Research? Rethinking Teacher Learning in an Age of Metrics and Rankings 

 

Anwar Ahmed 

University of British Columbia 

 

Abstract 

 

The rapid pace and sheer volume of research publications in today’s academic landscape pose a 

significant challenge for teachers, particularly those who seek to engage with research as a form 

of professional learning. Although teachers are not responsible for this proliferation, they are 

nonetheless expected to navigate an ever-expanding body of literature and integrate research-

based evidence into their practice. This article identifies the oversupply of publications as a 

barrier to English as an additional language (EAL) teachers’ meaningful engagement with 

research. After providing some background to the changing publishing landscape, I highlight the 

importance of fostering teachers’ transformative engagement with research-generated 

knowledge. I propose nurturing EAL teachers’ interpretive capacity, which encompasses critical 

reading, contextual awareness, and critical emotional literacy. I conclude the article with some 

implications for contextualizing theoretical ideas and for developing professional knowledge and 

competencies that are personally meaningful, locally grounded, and socially relevant.  

 

Introduction 

 

Earlier studies revealed that most English as an additional language (EAL) teachers did not 

consistently engage with published research for their professional learning and growth (Borg, 

2009, Clarke, 1994; Nassaji, 2012). However, governments, professional associations, and 

school boards have been encouraging teachers to turn to research-based evidence. Digital 

technologies are also playing a key role in facilitating access to the latest research. As a result, 

more teachers are now interested in reading academic publications and applying research 

findings to their classroom teaching (e.g., Hall, 2023; Hosseini et al., 2024; Kowalczuk-

Walędziak & Ion, 2024). In addition to teachers’ growing interest in seeking research-based 

knowledge, researchers are eager to disseminate their findings to a wider audience. For most 

researchers, a detailed knowledge mobilization plan is now a part of their grant applications.  

 

However, teachers who wish to engage with research often struggle to navigate the 

overwhelming volume of publications, in addition to other barriers such as paywalls and hectic 

teaching schedules. In Hall’s (2023) study, some teachers expressed frustration with the sheer 

number of scholarly articles. A primary concern was the difficulty of identifying which research-

based recommendations were most relevant to their classroom practice. In this article, I discuss 

how the emphasis on research productivity, which is driven by a neoliberal business model, 

disrupts the scholarly ecosystem of education generally and teaching EAL specifically. To 

address this problem, I propose a strategy centred on developing EAL teachers’ interpretive 

capacity, which will better enable them to critically engage with research-based 

recommendations. This proposal emphasizes three key areas: critical reading of research 

publications, contextual awareness, and critical emotional literacy. I argue that cultivating such 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v10i1.649


 Ahmed 17 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 10 Number 1 (2025): 16–29 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v10i1.649 

interpretive capacity can empower EAL teachers to bridge the often-cited “gap” between 

research and teaching. I conclude the article by discussing how this approach supports EAL 

teachers in contextualizing theories of language teaching and learning and in developing 

professional knowledge and competencies that are both meaningful and transformative within 

their local contexts.  

 

Continuing Professional Learning and Engagement with Research 

 

The knowledge, skills, and experiences gained during pre-service teacher education programs are 

invaluable. The quality of pre-service education can have a lasting impact on a teacher’s future 

learning (Whitehead & Arslan, 2025). However, beyond formal pre-service education, teachers 

draw from many other sources of knowledge. For example, reflection on classroom practice and 

daily experiences is a vital part of teachers’ continuing professional learning. While methods and 

levels of intentionality may differ, all teachers are reflective learners (Farrell, 2022). Another 

source of teacher knowledge is the memory of being a student. By the time one becomes a 

professional teacher, he/she/they will have spent hundreds of hours in various classrooms, 

receiving instruction and mentorship. Understandably, all teachers have role models whose 

practices and philosophies continue to inspire them and shape their work (e.g., Ben-Peretz, 

1995). Conversations with colleagues and students are also an important source of teacher 

knowledge. Informal chats in hallways or staff rooms often serve as rich opportunities for 

sharing experiences and ideas that may contribute to ongoing professional growth (Khong et al., 

2023). Finally, in most educational systems, some forms of professional development (PD) 

activities are offered. Research presents mixed findings on the effectiveness of PD workshops, 

particularly when topics and methods of PD are imposed in a top-down manner. Yet, for many 

teachers, formal PD sessions can be a valuable source of professional knowledge (Ehlert & 

Souvignier, 2023). 

 

Whether through institutionally mandated PD events or self-directed learning, published 

research can be a valuable source of knowledge for teachers. Pedagogical recommendations 

emerging from research can help teachers develop, validate, or refine their practice (Winch et al., 

2015). In the field of teaching English as an additional language (TEAL)—also referred to as 

teaching English as a second language (TESL), teaching English to speakers of other languages 

(TESOL), and English language teaching (ELT)—some researchers have focused on the nature 

of the research–practice gap. For instance, Borg’s (2009) international study involving 505 

teachers from 13 countries revealed that in-service language teachers exhibited very low levels 

of engagement with academic research. Key reasons cited for this limited engagement included 

lack of time, restricted access to journals and books, insufficient practical (pedagogical) guidance 

in published studies, difficulty understanding academic texts, and a general disinterest in 

research. While some researchers are trying to find ways to bring research and teaching closer, 

others question the relevance of research for teaching (e.g., Maley 2016; Medgyes, 2017).  

 

Despite criticisms about the relevance of academic research for classroom practice, there 

is increasing attention to building a nexus between research and practice in ELT (Ahmed & 

Morgan, 2025). For example, the BC TEAL Journal promotes “scholarship as a shared endeavour 

of everyone in the field” (Douglas, 2019, p. i)—not just of researchers or teachers alone. 

Reflecting the perspectives shared by many researchers, teachers, and teacher-educators in 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v10i1.649


 Ahmed 18 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 10 Number 1 (2025): 16–29 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v10i1.649 

British Columbia, the journal views EAL teachers as scholar-practitioners who read the literature 

“to find connections between teaching and research while growing their abilities to understand 

this literature with a critical mind and, when applicable, use or adapt it for their own teaching 

and learning contexts” (Douglas, 2019, p. i). There are also advocacy and initiatives by 

professional organizations such as TESOL International Association (2024) for raising teachers’ 

awareness of research. The good news is that EAL teachers are showing growing interest in 

engaging with research literature as part of their continuing professional learning (e.g., Abbott et 

al., 2021; Ahmed, 2019; Hall, 2023).  

 

At this point, two questions are worth asking. First, what kind of research is being 

referred to? Second, what does “research engagement” mean? It is important to acknowledge that 

not all research in education is intended to improve classroom practice. Some studies are 

designed to directly inform teaching, while others aim to advance theoretical understanding of 

certain concepts or phenomena. Whitty (2006), for example, drew a distinction between 

education research and educational research. The former is about education, whereas the latter 

is conducted for the purpose of improving education. In other words, educational research is 

intentionally designed to support classroom practice. That said, what qualifies as “educational” 

research remains open to interpretation. My view is that teachers themselves are best positioned 

to determine whether a particular piece of research is educationally relevant. Another concept 

that needs clarification is engagement. Drawing on Borg (2010) and Eriksen and Brevik (2023), 

a distinction can be made between engagement in research and engagement with research. 

Engagement in research refers to the process of designing and conducting studies to generate 

new knowledge or solve specific problems. Engagement with research, on the other hand, 

involves accessing, reading, interpreting, and applying the findings and recommendations of 

studies conducted by others. 

 

Despite teachers’ historical reluctance to engage with research (e.g., Kaestle, 1993; 

Zeichner, 1995), many EAL teachers are now interested in consulting research for professional 

learning. For instance, Hall’s (2023) study investigated how English language teachers engage 

with research by examining the extent to which they report reading (a) research in its original, 

published form and (b) other research-oriented professional literature. The study also explored 

teachers’ motivation for reading research, the barriers that discourage or prevent them from 

doing so, and the research topics they prioritize for future inquiry in ELT. Additionally, the study 

sought to identify strategies for making research findings more accessible and relevant to 

language teachers. Hall (2023) collected data through a questionnaire completed by 696 teachers 

from diverse contexts in Europe and Asia. Then, he conducted semi-structured interviews with 

384 participants drawn from the survey pool. One of Hall’s conclusions was that “while still a 

minority within the profession, significant numbers of English language teachers are interested in 

reading about or learning from research” (p. 41). 

 

However, what stood out in Hall’s study was a concern raised by some participants about 

the difficulty of identifying the most relevant research for their classroom teaching. The 

following two comments are illustrative: 

 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v10i1.649


 Ahmed 19 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 10 Number 1 (2025): 16–29 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v10i1.649 

• The biggest problem is selecting the research that is the most relevant … With the 

proliferation of ideas and publications, that is increasingly hard to do (a teacher from 

Spain, quoted in Hall, 2023, p. 30). 

• I feel there are far more people out there writing about education than necessary, and 

trying to find something useful is like fishing in a lake that is doubling as a dumping 

ground. Finding anything of any value is a tedious task (a teacher from Japan, quoted in 

Hall, 2023, p. 30). 

 

These comments may be symptomatic of a larger problem of research publications: the 

valorization of productivity in academia and the fast and abundant publication of research 

reports. I argue that, to advance the conversation on pedagogically meaningful research 

engagement, people in the field of EAL teaching and learning must address the over-supply of 

research publications. 

 

The Volume of Research Publications 

 

Today’s scholarly ecosystem is undergoing unprecedented changes. In recent years, there has 

been an exponential growth in the publication of academic books and journal articles (Hanson et 

al., 2024). Academics are now facing increasing pressure to publish more frequently, and journal 

editors are struggling to recruit qualified peer reviewers. Researchers are also finding it difficult 

to keep up with the constant influx of new literature (Parolo et al., 2015). Hanson et al. (2024) 

have rightly described this phenomenon as “the strain on scientific publishing” (p. 823). 

 

What are the causes of this strain? There are many. A comprehensive discussion is 

beyond the scope of this article, so I highlight a few key factors. First, the shift toward a 

neoliberal business model in higher education has prioritized quantity over quality. Professors 

and graduate students are expected to publish more, yet there is no clear benchmark for what 

constitutes “more.” The academic environment has become highly competitive, with individuals 

racing toward an undefined target in terms of publication output. Second, advancements in 

digital technology have made publishing easier and faster. Many publishers now prefer an 

online-only publication model, which reduces costs and incentivizes higher publication volumes 

(Frank et al., 2023). 

 

A third factor is the growing inclusivity toward scholars from the Global South. This 

openness is a positive step toward achieving equity in academic publishing and decolonizing 

knowledge production (Hanson et al., 2024). However, this inclusivity has also been exploited by 

bad actors who view publishing as a profit-making opportunity. This profit motive has led to a 

rise in predatory journals (Eve & Priego, 2017). Other questionable practices in this age of 

rankings and metrics include forming citation cartels, i.e., a group of authors who cite each 

other’s works to inflate their citation counts even if some of the citations are irrelevant 

(Catanzaro, 2024). Finally, there has been a commercialization of academic publishing, 

particularly by powerful companies with a global reach. The internationalization and 

commercialization of research that began after World War II has since been accelerated by tools 

like the Science Citation Index. Today, the monetization of publication and citation data has 

become a major industry, shaping and, in many ways, disturbing the ecosystem of scientific 

publishing (Mills, 2025).   

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v10i1.649


 Ahmed 20 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 10 Number 1 (2025): 16–29 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v10i1.649 

All these changes, e.g., digitization, commercialization, intensified data management, and 

mounting pressure from employers and funders to publish more, are significantly affecting how 

knowledge is generated and shared. Productivity is not only valorized but also equated with 

scholarly merit. This equation, however, is deeply “extractive and exploitative—of individual 

writers, one another, and the larger scholarly ecosystem” (Ahern-Dodson & Dufour, 2023, p. 24). 

In this competitive climate, the relentless push to produce more writing can, in fact, be 

detrimental to academic writers’ health and well-being (Laquintano, 2023). Moreover, the rapid 

pace and sheer volume of research publications in today’s academic landscape present a distinct 

challenge for teachers: how do they navigate the sea of scholarly publications? This challenge is 

especially significant given that most teachers are too busy teaching and assessing students to 

find the time to read and engage with research (e.g., Maley, 2016; Medgyes, 2017).  

 

The Teacher in a Changing Publishing Environment 

 

The disruption in the scholarly publishing ecosystem affects multiple stakeholders, but the group 

I focus on is teachers. It is reasonable to argue that English language teachers’ engagement with 

research, as a form of professional learning, is being negatively affected by the publishing 

industry’s current practices. Although teachers are not responsible for the proliferation of 

research publications, they are often expected to sift through an ever-growing body of literature 

and to integrate research-based recommendations into their practice. 

 

Whereas the lack of access to academic literature was a recurring finding in earlier 

studies in the 1990s and 2000s, that barrier has been substantially reduced thanks to 

technological advancements, the rise of open-access publishing, and innovations such as plain-

language summaries. Instead of blaming teachers for their lack of research engagement, there is 

growing support within TEAL communities for fostering dialogic, bi-directional, and reciprocal 

relationships between teachers and researchers (Sato & Loewen, 2022). There is an interest in 

empowering teachers to access, read, interpret, and apply research through joining professional 

learning communities and harnessing the affordances of digital technologies (Abbott et al., 2021; 

Ahmed, 2015). However, what is often missing from these discussions is a strategy for dealing 

with the over-supply of research publications. This leads to a critical question: How can EAL 

teachers navigate the flood of research publications and the multitude of models, frameworks, 

and pedagogical recommendations? This question is especially timely in a neoliberal academic 

climate where speed, productivity, and competition have become defining features of 

scholarship. 

 

Transformative Engagement with Research 

 

I propose that EAL teachers become critical and creative readers of research publications. In an 

era where teachers are increasingly expected to meet predefined curricular goals and 

performance standards, research engagement can easily become a mechanical exercise without 

meaningful reflection. As Ball (2003) warned over two decades ago, neoliberal performativity 

compels teachers “to organize themselves as a response to targets, indicators and evaluations... 

and live an existence of calculation” (p. 215). This culture of performance may lead to feelings 

of inner conflict and inauthenticity among educators. Amid the global push for evidence-based 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v10i1.649


 Ahmed 21 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 10 Number 1 (2025): 16–29 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v10i1.649 

practice in education, I argue that teachers’ engagement with research must be transformative 

rather than performative.  

 

Building on Kowalczuk-Walędziak and Ion (2024), transformative engagement with 

research can be conceptualized as a deep, multidimensional commitment that becomes integral to 

a teacher’s professional identity and purpose. Here, the aim is not only to improve one’s own 

classroom practice but also to reshape the teaching profession and the education system more 

broadly. This form of engagement is driven by a clear, future-oriented vision that reaches into 

schools, communities, and institutional cultures. Teachers who engage transformatively with 

research not only seek out information, but also critically examine current practices and imagine 

and enact innovative approaches. Their motivation stems from a sincere commitment to utilizing 

research as a catalyst for change. For these reasons, transformative engagement—according to 

Kowalczuk-Walędziak and Ion (2024)—involves the integration of affective, cognitive, and 

behavioural dimensions. Ultimately, it aims to empower teachers to embed research 

meaningfully and sustainably into their everyday practice, which allows them to play a leading 

role in reshaping the pedagogical landscape.   

 

The Need for EAL Teachers’ Interpretive Capacity 

 

To engage with research in transformative ways, I propose that both initial teacher education 

programs and in-service professional learning activities place a greater emphasis on fostering 

teachers’ interpretive capacity. In other words, the question must be asked: How can teachers 

read, interpret, and apply research findings in ways that will transform their pedagogies and 

support students’ learning? An interpretive approach is particularly necessary in the current 

context of neoliberal performativity, a culture of individualism and competition, and an over-

supply of research publications.  

 

To cultivate teachers’ interpretive capacity, I advocate for promoting critical and 

reflective practices of reading, where the goal is not simply to read more, but to read more 

strategically and meaningfully. This approach should focus on the following interrelated 

dimensions: 

 

1. Critical reading of research: Encouraging teachers to thoughtfully evaluate research 

findings for pedagogical innovation. 

2. Contextual awareness: Supporting teachers in interpreting research within the realities 

of their specific teaching contexts. 

3. Critical emotional literacy: Recognizing and addressing the affective dimensions of 

connecting research and teaching.   

 

First, reading research for pedagogical innovation demands deep and critical engagement 

with the research text—whether written, visual, or auditory. When multiple teachers read the 

same article or curriculum resource, they may interpret it differently. The interpretations and 

meanings will depend on the teacher’s mode of engagement, that is, how they interact with the 

resource, understand its content, and integrate it into their prior knowledge. Thus, engagement 

may be shaped by individual beliefs, experiences, visions, and epistemological views (Remillard, 

2012).  

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v10i1.649


 Ahmed 22 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 10 Number 1 (2025): 16–29 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v10i1.649 

Insights from reading theory and literary criticism may be useful here. For instance, 

Rosenblatt’s (2005) transactional theory highlights how meaning emerges through dynamic 

interactions between readers and texts in particular contexts. Her work emphasizes that readers 

bring their unique experiences to a text, and that understanding is co-constructed through an 

active, reciprocal exchange between the text and the reader. This theory can help understand how 

teachers engage with curriculum resources (Remillard, 2012) and how such engagement might 

influence their instructional practices (Ryan & Dagostino, 2017).  

 

Additionally, valuable insights can be gained from critical literacy as a way of reading 

(Morgan & Ramanathan, 2005). Inspired by the Frankfurt School and grounded in the Freirean 

tradition of transformative education, critical literacy enables readers to read the text in its social, 

historical, economic, and political contexts. Readers see not only what is written in black and 

white but also what is not written (the hidden, silenced or implied meanings). Thus, meaning-

making becomes an ethical project with a vision for a better, more equitable world (Ahmed, in 

press). There are various models of critical literacy that can be instructive here. One example is a 

model proposed by Freebody and Luke (1990), which can offer valuable guidance for developing 

an interpretive stance. Freebody and Luke’s framework—known as the Four Resources Model—

has been widely applied across diverse curricular and classroom contexts. According to these 

authors, individuals engaging with texts typically adopt the following roles: (1) breaking the 

codes of texts, (2) participating in the construction of meaning, (3) using texts functionally, and 

(4) critically analyzing and transforming texts. These roles were later conceptualized as 

resources. Freebody and Luke (1990, p. 7) emphasized that: 

 

A successful reader in our society needs to develop and sustain the resources to adopt 

four related roles: code breaker (‘how do I crack this?’), text participant (‘what does this 

mean?’), text user (‘what do I do within this, here and now?’), and text analyst (‘what 

does all this do to me?’).  

 

Thus, critical literacy takes a stance against any reading practices that search for a stable and 

universal meaning, insensitive to the context where the text is written or read.  

 

When it comes to teachers’ reading of research as a form of professional learning and 

growth, another model of critical and creative reading that Ada and Campoy (2017) have 

proposed may also be productive. This model consists of four interconnected phases: 

 

1. Descriptive Phase 

2. Personal Interpretive Phase 

3. Critical/Multicultural/Anti-Bias Phase 

4. Creative/Transformative Phase 

 

The descriptive phase focuses on understanding the literal content of the text by identifying the 

who, what, when, where, why, and how. This phase lays the foundation for reading 

comprehension. In the personal interpretive phase, readers connect the text to their own histories, 

experiences, and emotions. It brings personal perspectives to the act of meaning-making. Next, 

the critical/multicultural/anti-bias phase invites readers to examine the text through a critical 

lens: questioning assumptions, identifying biases, and exploring ideas of justice and equity. 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v10i1.649


 Ahmed 23 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 10 Number 1 (2025): 16–29 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v10i1.649 

Finally, in the creative/transformative phase, readers act on their critical insights and apply them 

to make positive changes in their lives and communities. This phase promotes readers’ agency 

and aims to support broader goals of social and educational transformation.  

 

Overall, this model of reading presents text-engagement as a dialogic process, rather than 

passive consumption of information. It involves interaction, interpretation, and reflection. I must 

note that these phases are not intended to be linear. As Ada and Campoy (2017) have clarified, 

the phases may be interwoven, and more than one phase can occur simultaneously. Although the 

primary audience of Ada and Campoy was students, I believe that their model of critical and 

creative reading offers insights and guidance for teachers seeking to engage with research texts 

for pedagogical enrichment and professional growth.  

 

Implications and Hopes 

 

First, EAL teachers can draw on models of critical reading to engage more meaningfully with 

research literature by moving beyond surface-level comprehension. By reflecting on how 

research findings relate to their own experiences (Interpretive Phase), critically analyzing the 

underlying assumptions and power dynamics in research (Critical Phase), and considering how 

to apply new knowledge to improving their practice (Transformative Phase), teachers can 

become active participants in meaning making and in their own professional growth. Adopting 

such critical reading practices can foster personally meaningful and transformative professional 

learning. It may also encourage teachers to see themselves as reflective and empowered agents of 

educational change. 

 

Second, while it may sound like a cliché, context truly is everything in education. There 

are numerous examples of inappropriate application of theories and research-generated strategies 

that were removed from their original contexts. The evidence-based practice movement in 

education has drawn criticism for promoting the universal application of so-called “best 

practices” without adequate attention to local conditions (Biesta, 2015). In my previous research 

(Ahmed, 2019), I found that teachers usually attend closely to their professional context when 

reading and interpreting research publications. One participant observed: “I think the teaching 

context is very important because, even if you understand research findings, you cannot use them 

if they do not match your context: students, books, living area, type of school, financial means 

and so on” (p. 183). Drawing on this and other reading strategies employed by teachers 

participating in my study, I conceptualized reading research as an act of attending to contextual 

circumstances1. 

 

I recommend that teachers keep their classroom context in mind when engaging with 

research. The context of knowledge production (e.g., the research setting) may differ 

significantly from the context of knowledge use (e.g., the classroom). As Eraut (1994) noted 

three decades ago, teachers are the only meaningful validators of research knowledge within 

their classrooms. Similarly, commenting on the relationship between theory and practice in 

language education, Widdowson (2003) wrote: 

 

 
1 The three other ways of reading research that I discussed were: reading as interrogation, reading as dialogue, and 

reading as drawing upon prior experiences. See Ahmed (2019) for details.  

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v10i1.649


 Ahmed 24 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 10 Number 1 (2025): 16–29 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v10i1.649 

The validity and relevance of theoretical ideas, however, do not necessarily transfer to 

times and places other than those of their origin. They are valid given certain conditions, 

relevant to certain circumstances. So they need always to be critically reviewed, and 

revised or rejected in the light of different local conditions and circumstances. (p. 25) 

 

In light of these observations, I encourage EAL teachers to read research through the lens of their 

own classroom conditions and to evaluate the applicability of research in accordance with the 

realities of their specific teaching contexts. 

 

Third, the topic of emotion is often overlooked in academic discussions. For a long time, 

research has been viewed primarily as a rational activity in pursuit of objective “truth.” Although 

emotions are “an inevitable and unavoidable part of the research process,” the role of emotions in 

knowledge construction has historically been neglected (Widdowfield, 2000, p. 205). Only 

recently have scholars across disciplines begun to recognize the nexus of emotions and 

knowledge construction (e.g., Kenway & Youdell, 2011; Xu & Stahl, 2025). 

 

While paying attention to the emotional dimensions of conducting research is important, I 

argue that it is also important to consider the emotions of those who read and utilize research. 

This consideration is vital because most studies on knowledge mobilization and evidence use 

have investigated the research-practice relation “from a rational rather than an emotional 

standpoint” (Hornung & Smolnik, 2022, p. 109). In language education, teachers’ emotions can 

serve as a catalyst for developing a stronger research–teaching nexus (Ahmed & Morgan, 2025). 

For example, English language teachers who participated in Yang and Sato’s (2025) study 

mentioned that engaging with research offered them emotional support. These authors described 

how anxiety about discontent with teaching methods and instructional designs compelled a 

participant—Xiaohui—to re-evaluate her role. When faced with “intense negative feelings” (p. 

12), she sought knowledge and comfort through “engagement with theoretical literature” (p. 12). 

As a result of her engagement with research and reflective journaling, she felt “joyous, uplifted, 

and accomplished” (p. 13). Similarly, in their investigation of success stories of teachers’ 

engagement with research, Kowalczuk-Walędziak and Ion (2024) found that teachers valued 

research not only for its practical insights but also for the enjoyment, fascination, and satisfaction 

it provided. Although research in this area remains limited, these recent studies suggest a 

growing need to acknowledge and explore the emotional dimensions of teachers’ engagement 

with research. 

 

I propose that greater attention be paid to the role of emotion when teachers interact with 

research for pedagogical improvement. In particular, everyone in the field of EAL teaching and 

learning should consider the kinds of emotional stance EAL teachers might adopt to sustain 

active and critical engagement with research. As a starting point, ELT may benefit from 

developing teachers’ critical emotional literacy. Here, Winans’s (2012) definition of critical 

emotional literacy offers guidance: 

 

the ability to understand how emotions function, particularly in terms of the ways that 

they inform identity, impact our relationship to social norms, and guide our attention. … 

It offers the capacity for exploring how emotions function in terms of constructing 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v10i1.649


 Ahmed 25 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 10 Number 1 (2025): 16–29 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v10i1.649 

knowledge, beliefs, and (intersectional) identities, and, in turn, impacting actions. (pp. 

155–156) 

 

Both initial teacher education and in-service professional learning initiatives can be harnessed to 

nurture this kind of emotional literacy. Teachers’ emotional awareness can help them navigate the 

overwhelming volume of research publications. For instance, rather than blaming themselves for 

not being able to keep up with every new article or research trend, they can reflect on the broader 

structural and economic factors that contribute to the overproduction of publications. They can 

also recognize that transformative professional learning is not about reading more, but about 

reading more strategically and critically, with an awareness of their own emotional responses.  

 

Conclusion 

 

The three key concepts—critical reading, contextual awareness, and emotional literacy—should 

be foundational for cultivating an interpretive capacity among EAL teachers. Such a capacity is 

essential in this era of rapid increase in research publication. As teachers are increasingly 

expected to perform in alignment with standards, targets, and indicators (Biesta, 2015), they may 

experience inner conflict and a sense of inauthenticity (Ball, 2003). In the context of a neoliberal 

academic climate that emphasizes productivity and competition, teachers who wish to engage 

with research may feel overwhelmed deciding what is important and what is trivial in the endless 

production line of research publications.  

 

In response to the above problem, I have argued that teachers need to be strategic, 

creative, and critical readers of research publications. They need to develop an interpretive 

capacity that enables them to identify relevant research and judiciously apply, and adapt when 

necessary, its findings to their local contexts. To support the development of this capacity, I have 

proposed three interrelated strategies: engaging in critical and creative reading, developing 

contextual awareness, and cultivating critical emotional literacy. Together, these approaches can 

empower teachers to meaningfully bridge the oft-cited “gap” between research and practice. 

These strategies may also help teachers manage the anxiety of keeping up with emerging 

research and take a more focused and reflective approach to professional learning. Ultimately, 

this interpretive capacity is likely to support teachers in contextualizing theoretical ideas 

(Taşdemir & Karaman, 2022) and developing professional knowledge and competencies that are 

personally meaningful, locally grounded, and socially relevant (Blömeke & Kaiser, 2017). Both 

pre-service teacher education and in-service professional development programs can cultivate 

this capacity. How best to achieve this will vary across contexts, and I invite readers to consider 

effective ways of fostering teachers’ interpretive capacity within their own settings. 

 

Acknowledgements 

 

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2025 Annual BC TEAL Conference in 

Vancouver. I would like to thank the attendees who offered questions and insights, as well as the 

editor and the two anonymous reviewers of the BC TEAL Journal for their valuable feedback. 

  

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v10i1.649


 Ahmed 26 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 10 Number 1 (2025): 16–29 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v10i1.649 

References 

 

Abbott, M. L., Lee, K. K., & Rossiter, M. J. (2021). Research mobilization in TESL learning 

communities: Benefits, challenges, supports, and procedures. Alberta Journal of 

Educational Research, 67(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.11575/ajer.v67i1.56703  

Ada, A. F., & Campoy, F. I. (2017). Critical creative literacy for bilingual teachers in the 21st 

century. Issues in Teacher Education, 26(2), 115–128. https://www.itejournal.org/wp-

content/pdfs-issues/summer-2017/13florada&campoy.pdf  

Ahern-Dodson, J., & Dufour, M. (2023). The productivity trap: Why we need a new model of 

faculty writing support. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 55(1), 24–30. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2023.2151800  

Ahmed, A., & Morgan, B. (2025). Cultivating the nexus of research and practice in language 

teacher education: A duoethnographic exploration. System, 131, 103642. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2025.103642  

Ahmed, A. (2015). Teachers’ engagement with educational research: Toward a conceptual 

framework for locally-based interpretive communities. Education Policy Analysis 

Archives, 23, 40. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.1776  

Ahmed, A. (2019). Engagement with research, teacher learning and educational leadership: 

towards an interpretive-ecological approach. International Journal of Leadership in 

Education, 22(2), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2017.1394495 

Ahmed, A. (in-press). Critical literacy. In A. F. Selvi (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of critical 

applied linguistics and language education. Palgrave Macmillan.  

Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education 

Policy, 18(2), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093022000043065  

Ben-Peretz, M. (1995). Learning from experience: Memory and the teacher’s account of 

teaching. State University of New York Press. 

Biesta, G. (2015). Improving education through research? From effectiveness, causality and 

technology to purpose, complexity and culture. Policy Futures in Education, 14(2), 194–

210. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210315613900  

Blömeke, S., & Kaiser, G. (2017). Understanding the development of teachers’ professional 

competencies as personally, situationally and socially determined. In D. J. Clandinin & J. 

Husu (Eds.), International handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 783–802). 

SAGE Publishers.  

Borg, S. (2009). English language teachers’ conceptions of research. Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 

358–388. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp007  

Borg, S. (2010). Language teacher research engagement. Language Teaching, 43(4), 391–429. 

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444810000170  

Broekkamp, H., & van Hout-Wolters, B. (2007). The gap between educational research and 

practice: A literature review, symposium, and questionnaire. Educational Research and 

Evaluation, 13(3), 203–220. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/13803610701626127  

Catanzaro, M. (2024). Citation cartels help some mathematicians–and their universities–climb 

the rankings. Science, 383, 6682. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.zcl2s6d  

Clarke, M. A. (1994). The dysfunctions of the theory/practice discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 

28(1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587196 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v10i1.649
https://doi.org/10.11575/ajer.v67i1.56703
https://www.itejournal.org/wp-content/pdfs-issues/summer-2017/13florada&campoy.pdf
https://www.itejournal.org/wp-content/pdfs-issues/summer-2017/13florada&campoy.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2023.2151800
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2025.103642
https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.1776
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2017.1394495
https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093022000043065
https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210315613900
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp007
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444810000170
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/13803610701626127
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.zcl2s6d
https://doi.org/10.2307/3587196


 Ahmed 27 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 10 Number 1 (2025): 16–29 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v10i1.649 

Douglas, S. R. (2019). Scholar-practitioners contributing to the English as an additional language 

teaching and learning community’s knowledge resources. BC TEAL Journal, 4(1), i-iii. 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v4i1.346  

Ehlert, M., & Souvignier, E. (2023). Effective professional development in implementation 

processes–the teachers’ view. Teaching and Teacher Education, 134, 104329. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104329  

Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. The Falmer Press. 

Eriksen, T. M., & Brevik, L. M. (2022). Developing a “research literacy way of thinking” in 

initial teacher education: Students as co-researchers. In I. Menter (Ed.), The Palgrave 

handbook of teacher education research (pp. 1–26). Springer.  

Eve, M. & Priego, E. (2017). Who is actually harmed by predatory publishers? Triple C: 

Communication, Capitalism & Critique, 15(2), 755-770. 

https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v15i2.867  

Farrell, T. S. C. (2022). Reflective practice in language teaching. Cambridge University Press. 

Frank, J., Foster, R., & Pagliari, C. (2023). Open access publishing–noble intention, flawed 

reality. Social Science & Medicine, 317, 115592. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115592  

Freebody, P., & Luke, A. (1990). Literacies programs: Debates and demands in cultural context. 

Prospect: An Australian Journal of TESOL, 5(3), 7–16. 

https://grdg620.pbworks.com/f/luke___freebody_text_roles.pdf  

Hall, G. (2023). Teachers’ engagement with published research: How do teachers who read 

research navigate the field, what do they read, and why? British Council. 

https://doi.org/10.57884/B04W-E417  

Hanson, M. A., Barreiro, P. G., Crosetto, P., & Brockington, D. (2024). The strain on scientific 

publishing. Quantitative Science Studies, 5(4), 823–843. 

https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00327  

Hornung, O., & Smolnik, S. (2022). At the mercy of our emotions? A multi‐dimensional analysis 

of emotions in knowledge management research. Knowledge and Process Management, 

29(2), 109–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1701  

Hosseini, M., Bahrami, V., & Dikilitaş, K. (2024). From research reading and doing to research 

use: Tracking trajectories of becoming research-informed second language teachers. 

System, 125, 103445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103445  

Kaestle, C. F. (1993). The awful reputation of educational research. Educational Researcher, 

22(1), 23–31. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1177303 

Kenway, J., & Youdell, D. (2011). The emotional geographies of education: Beginning a 

conversation. Emotion, Space and Society, 4(3), 131–136. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2011.07.001  

Khong, T. D. H., Saito, E., Hardy, I., & Gillies, R. (2023). Teacher learning through dialogue 

with colleagues, self and students. Educational Research, 65(2), 170–188. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2023.2192226  

Kowalczuk-Walędziak, M., & Ion, G. (2024). Understanding and improving teachers’ research 

engagement: Insights from success stories in Poland and Spain. Teaching and Teacher 

Education, 151, 104747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2024.104747   

Laquintano, T. (2023). When writing makes you sick. In K. H. Owens & D. Van Ittersum (Eds.), 

Beyond productivity: Embodied, situated, and (un)balanced faculty writing processes (pp. 

72-88). Utah State University Press. 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v10i1.649
https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v4i1.346
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104329
https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v15i2.867
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115592
https://grdg620.pbworks.com/f/luke___freebody_text_roles.pdf
https://doi.org/10.57884/B04W-E417
https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00327
https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1701
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103445
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1177303
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2011.07.001
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2023.2192226
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2024.104747


 Ahmed 28 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 10 Number 1 (2025): 16–29 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v10i1.649 

Maley, A. (2016). More research is needed–A mantra too far. Humanising Language Teaching, 

18(3), 1–18. http://old.hltmag.co.uk/jun16/mart01.htm  

Medgyes, P. (2017). The (ir)relevance of academic research for the language teacher. ELT 

Journal, 71(4), 491–498. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccx034  

Mills, D. (2025). One index, two publishers and the global research economy. Oxford Review of 

Education, 51(4), 545–560. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2024.2348448  

Morgan, B., & Ramanathan, V. (2005). Critical literacies and language education: Global and 

local perspectives. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 151–169. 

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000085  

Nassaji, H. (2012). The relationship between SLA research and language pedagogy: Teachers’ 

perspectives. Language Teaching Research, 16(3), 337–365. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168812436903  

Parolo, P. D. B., Pan, R. K., Ghosh, R., Huberman, B. A., Kaski, K., & Fortunato, S. (2015). 

Attention decay in science. Journal of Informetrics, 9(4), 734–745. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.07.006  

Remillard, J. T. (2012). Modes of engagement: Understanding teachers’ transactions with 

mathematics curriculum resources. In G. Gueudet, B. Pepin, & L. Trouche (Eds.), From 

text to “lived” resources: Mathematics curriculum materials and teacher development 

(pp. 105–122). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1966-8  

Rosenblatt, L. (2005). Making meaning with texts: Selected essays. Heinemann.  

Ryan, K., & Dagostino, L. (2017). The coding, scoring, and analysis of teachers’ responses 

following exposure to Louise Rosenblatt’s theories of reading. New England Reading 

Association Journal, 52(2), 35–48.  

Sato, M., & Loewen, S. (2022). The research–practice dialogue in second language learning and 

teaching: Past, present, and future. The Modern Language Journal, 106(3), 509–527. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12791  

Taşdemir, H., & Karaman, A. C. (2022). Professional development practices of English language 

teachers: A synthesis of studies published between 2006 and 2020. Review of Education, 

10(1), e3350. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3350  

TESOL International Association. (2024). TESOL research directions report. Retrieved from 

https://www.tesol.org/media/oijnexn0/research-directions-report_v4.pdf  

Whitehead, G. E., & Arslan, S. (2025). Bridging the theory and practice divide in pre-service 

language teacher education: A focus on teacher educators’ expertise from in-service 

teachers' vantage point. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 12, 101656. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101656  

Whitty, G. (2006). Education(al) research and education policy making: Is conflict inevitable? 

British Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 159–176. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920600568919  

Widdowfield, R. (2000). The place of emotions in academic research. Area, 32(2), 199–208. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2000.tb00130.x  

Widdowson, H. G. (2003). Expert beyond experience: Notes on the appropriate use of theory in 

practice. In D. Newby (Ed.), Mediating between theory and practice in the context of 

different learning cultures and languages (pp. 23–30). Council of Europe Publishing.  

Winans, A. E. (2012). Cultivating critical emotional literacy: Cognitive and contemplative 

approaches to engaging difference. College English, 75(2), 150–170. 

https://doi.org/10.58680/ce201221641  

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v10i1.649
http://old.hltmag.co.uk/jun16/mart01.htm
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccx034
https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2024.2348448
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000085
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168812436903
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.07.006
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1966-8
https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12791
https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3350
https://www.tesol.org/media/oijnexn0/research-directions-report_v4.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101656
https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920600568919
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2000.tb00130.x
https://doi.org/10.58680/ce201221641


 Ahmed 29 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 10 Number 1 (2025): 16–29 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v10i1.649 

Winch, C., Oancea, A., & Orchard, J. (2015). The contribution of educational research to 

teachers’ professional learning: Philosophical understandings. Oxford Review of 

Education, 41(2), 202–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2015.1017406  

Xu, W., & Stahl, G. (2025). Emotionality, spatiality and relationality: Deciphering the emotional 

geographies of Chinese language education in Australia. Journal of Multilingual and 

Multicultural Development, 46(4), 1382–1395. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2023.2240754  

Yang, S., & Sato, M. (2025). Unlocking language teacher wellbeing amid curriculum reform: A 

focus on emotion. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688241312961 

 

 

 
The BC TEAL Journal is licensed under a 

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. 

Copyright rests with the author(s). 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v10i1.649
https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2015.1017406
https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2023.2240754
https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688241312961
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

