The research question: what barriers hinder the teachers to complete researches, what support they need from the administration stuff, school psychologists and pedagogical community within the school, society, etc. We aim at studying barriers (obstacles, problems) and opportunities while carrying out a research activity in our school.

We have chosen this topic as it is extremely urgent. Within NIS teachers and learners are demanded to conduct researches, as they are schools eyeing at developing high-order skills and “expert thinking”. Both teachers and learners tend to conduct such an activity enthusiastically. And the question appears – why so many talented teachers cannot perform superbly in this strata? There are barriers existing which hinder. One day at the Methodological council of the school the research coordinators announced the conclusions based only on the numeric date (SWOT-analysis) – the two coordinators just compared the figures of proposed researches in advance and the actually submitted ones. They claimed that the major reason of incomplete research projects of kids and teachers is low motivation and irresponsibility. Other members of the Methodological Council questioned the accuracy and reliability of the conclusions, because the coordinators relied only on digital data (the number of declared projects and the number of completed projects), and not on data collection (for example, questionnaires, interviews of teachers and students). Therefore, we decided to conduct a deeper study based on the more extensive data involving not only teachers, but also the administration and psychological staff of the school.

In connection with the specifics of working with gifted children, which involves regular research activities within the walls of the school, the systematic work is expected from teachers in this direction. However, data on the number of student projects indicate that many of the announced projects were not completed. Therefore, the authors of the research asked the question: what barriers prevent teachers and their students from completing the research, and what support they need from the administration, the psychological personnel and the pedagogical community within the school, the society and others.

AR is an efficient instrument to improving own pedagogical practice understanding, teaching and learning quality empowering. Action research gives credence to the development of powers of reflective thought, discussion, decision and action by ordinary people participating in collective research on "private troubles" (Clem Adelman (1993) Kurt Lewin and the Origins of Action Research, Educational Action Research, 1:1, 7-24, DOI: 10.1080/0965079930010102). The starting point of pedagogical research at school should be a teacher's internal motivation to analyze own pedagogical experience. The main role here is played by the reflective abilities of the teacher-practitioner. The problem of teacher developing reflective thinking is relevant not only at the domestic level, but also at the international level. The OECD research report showed that a reflective self-analysis of the teacher's activity is one of the conditions for professional self-development (K. Kurakbayev, http://www.open-school.kz/glavstr/teacher_issledovatel/teacher_issledovatel_128_1.htm )

Observing a teacher’s research activity allows to identify a number of factors, barriers that hamper a practicing teacher-researcher from formulating a research problem, collecting data, analyzing them and introducing changes into the practice. Questionnaires - this method provides good data for analyzing the strengths of practicing teachers engaged in AR, to find out what support teachers need from school leaders, psychologists, colleagues, the pedagogical community, and helps to find out with what difficulties during the AR teachers face there. Using questionnaires, we may come up possible solutions (how to overcome barriers in research activities). Interviews is another additional method, allowing expanding the data on the issue under study. SWOT analysis is a method of introduction of changes in practice, evaluating internal and external factors that influence the development of a school research culture, it helps to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the research culture at school, find opportunities and threats for further research. Comparative analysis - this method will allow one to compare data on the level at which the research culture of the school was located before and after interference. Synthesis - this method will make it possible to generalize the data obtained and to combine the results of the research into a unified whole and draw conclusions.

Findings and expected outcomes: collection of initial data and questionnaire have showed differences in opinions on the reasons of difficulties among three groups of respondents: 1) school management, 2) psychologists and 3) teachers. The researchers (authors) have thought that only one respondent-administrator understands the necessities and needs of a practicing teacher dealing with AR. The majority of the local school leaders believe that the main reason for the low research culture is the low motivation and irresponsibility of teachers. The administration sees a solution (raising the research culture of the school) only in strengthening control. But the data of the international studies show that strengthening control by the leaders will not improve the situation, will not increase the effectiveness of teachers research. The questioning of psychologists showed their lack of understanding the goals and mechanisms of AR at school, the school psychologists themselves need methodological assistance in carrying out AR. Teachers during the survey have determined autonomously the level of their research skills: beginner, continuing and advanced. Most of the teachers have related themselves to the continuing researchers. The school has a high potential (theoretical training) for research, but the teachers lack practical skills. Another prioritized objective of our research is to hear “the teacher’s voice”, notice their needs, react and provide concrete practical assistance. Expected results: to familiarize school leaders and teachers with initial data and conclusions in order to improve the research practice in the school, to help the administrative staff to change approaches in school management in the strata of teacher research, and also to train teachers to practice the research methodology. Perhaps in the future we aim to involve the pupils of the school in this research in order to identify the needs of students in the project and research activities.

Cain, T. and Harris, R. (2013) Teachers' action research in a culture of performativity. Educational Action Research, 21 (3). pp. 343358. ISSN 17475074 doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2013.815039 Available at http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/37660/. Carr, Wilfred, and Stephen Kemmis. 1986. Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action Research. London: Falmer Press. Daniel Kilburn, Melanie Nind & Rose Wiles (2014) Learning as. Researchers and Teachers: The Development of a Pedagogical Culture for Social Science. Research Methods?, British Journal of Educational Studies, 62:2, 191-207. Elliott, J. 1991. Action Research for Educational Change. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Furlong, J., and J. Salisbury. 2005. “Best Practice Research Scholarships: An Evaluation.” Research Papers in Education 20 (1): 45–83. Gewirtz, S., J. Shapiro, M. Maguire, P. Mahony, and A. Cribb. 2009. “Doing Teacher Research: A Qualitative Analysis of Purposes, Processes and Experiences.” Educational Action Research 17 (4): 567–583. Grundy, S. 1982. “Three Modes of Action Research.” Curriculum Perspectives 3 (2): 22–34. Haggarty, L., and K. Postlethwaite. 2003. “Action Research: A Strategy for Teacher Change and School Development?” Oxford Review of Education 29 (4): 423–448. Horio, T. (1988). Educational thought and ideology in modern Japan: State authority and intellectual freedom. Tokyo: Tokyo University Press. Hutchinson, B., and P. Whitehouse. 1986. “Action Research, Professional Competence and School Organisation.” British Educational Research Journal 12 (1): 85–94. Kemmis, S. 2006. “Participatory Action Research and the Public Sphere.” Educational Action Research 14 (4): 459–476. Kemmis, S. 2007. “Action Research.” In Educational Research and Evidence-Based Practice, edited by M. Hammersley, 167–180. London: Sage. McNiff, Jean. 2002. Action Research: Principles and Practice. 2nd ed. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Ponte, P., J. Ax, D. Beijaard, and T. Wubbels. 2004. “Teachers’ Development of Professional Knowledge through Action Research and the Facilitation of This by Teacher Educators.” Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (6): 571–588. Richards, J. and Lockhart, C. (1995). Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. Cambridge University Press. Todd Whitaker: Rewiring your School’s Culture: How to Jump-Start Your School’s Culture Transformation (January 22, 2015)