In industrialized countries theres is and increased attention for teacher research, and classroom research and action research by teachers in schools. It is assumed that good teacher research contributes to: - structural improvements in instruction and student learning, - professional development of teachers and rewarding career opportunities, - development of schools as learning enriched work places for teachers. Starting from these claims, two points that deserve further empirical research are how teacher research and the three fields of development and improvement (instruction and learning, professional development, school as a work place) are related, and how teacher research can be promoted by school leaders in the school as a context for workplace learning. The aim of the paper is to bring three fields of research together: - teacher / practitioner research - educational leadership - workplace learning and professional development. Two research questions are: - to what extent do teachers deal with instruction and student learning from a research-minded attitude? - how can school leaders promote a research minded attitude among teachers related to issues that are directly connected to student learning and classroom instruction? The conceptual framework builds on the next rationale. Teachers play a central rol in effective instruction and improvements in student learning. Teaching can be improved by teachers reflecting systematically on their daily classroom practices. Systematic reflection is promoted when teacher are asked and helped to analyze and develop their daily practices from a research-minded attitude (looking for practice based evidence, checking experiences and opinions with colleagues, reading relevant literature). A research-minded attitude can be promoted by the school leaders' educational policy of strengthening school self-evaluation, quality assurance, and integral personnel policy. The result is a specific method for workplace learning that connects student learning, tacher professional development, and school improvement. The effectiveness of this method for workplace learning depends on the specific workplace contexts in which it is applied. This conceptual framework builds on insights in teacher reflection (Korthagen, 1999), practitioner research (Zeichner & Noffke, 2001), the regulative cycle of practice as science (Van Strien, 1986), educational leadership (Leitwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D., 2006), school as a workplace (Rosenholtz, 1989), and workplace learning in schools (Imants, J. & Van Veen, K., in press).

This research is executed in a school board for primary education in the eastern part of the Netherlands (about 25 schools and 500 teachers). For the first research question a survey is executed among all teachers. 250 teachers returned the questionnaire, resulting in a response rate of 50%. The questionnaire has two parts. Part 1 consists of five scales (5-13 items), each scale representing a step in the model of the regulative cycle (Van Strien, 1986). Teachers are asked about their daily practices regarding these five steps. Part 2 is a translation and adaptation of the Rosenholtz (1989) questionnaire on the school as a workplace. For the second question two comparative case studies are executed regarding school self-evaluation and integral personnel policy practices in schools. Six different schools were selected for each of these studies. Documents were analyzed, and school leaders, teams, and teachers were interviewed.

Results of the first study show that teachers show the lowest research-minded attitude regarding planning of teaching (step 3), and the highest research-minded attitude during performance of teaching (step 4). Teachers score relatively high on consulting colleagues/asking for help/using ideas, and following learning results of students. The lowest scores are for applying research results, reading professional literature, and discussing routines and self-evident practices. Analyzing/diagnosing (step 2) shows the strongest relationships with workplace conditions, and performing (step 4) has the weakest relationships. Regarding question 2 the comparative case studies show that in school self-evaluation and integral personnel policy the potentials for improving teaching by applying the instruments for practice based evidence are hardly used. Plans for improvement in instruction are followed up by weak efforts for data based monitoring of performance. The operationalization of specific criteria for success appears to be difficult for school leaders, teachers, and teams.