Definitions of practice-based research

Constructivism and Constructionism 

In this MESHGuide we are now concentrating on one particular approach the MirandaNet Fellows developed. This international professional organisation was founded by Dr Christina Preston in 1992. Central to that organisation is the argument that the constructivist approach is preferable in the CPD context, because pedagogical design acknowledges the human need to generate knowledge and meaning from their own experiences.

Constructivism is not a specific learning theory and it is more appropriate to talk about constructionism (Papert, 1986) inspired by the constructivist and experiential learning ideas of Jean Piaget (1928; 1951). Papert's ideas were becoming well-known in the 1980s through the publication of his seminal book, Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas (1980). Papert’s views about learning are particularly relevant as he developed the Logo language, a computer language that children could use to build mathematical concepts. He wanted the pupils to draw their own conclusions through creative experimentation and the making of social objects. The constructionist teacher takes on a mediational role rather than adopting an instructionist position as advocated strongly by Alan November in his book,’Empowering Students with Technology’ (2009). Teaching ‘at’ students is replaced by assisting them to understand—and help one another to understand—problems in a hands-on way. Teachers who are themselves taught in this way with colleagues acting as mentors rather than experts are more likely to model this kind of teaching in the classroom.

Too often student teachers are still lectured about learning ‘by doing’ rather than being given the chance ‘to do’. However, in in-service professional development, during the 1980s and early 1990s, the constructionist approach gained ground with the introduction of action research and practice-based research as a methodology for teaching. But the constructivist practices of action research and practice-based research differ in detail. In action research the teacher is encouraged to construct an understanding of the role of digital technologies in school, for example, by undertaking a negotiated project that tackles a perceived challenge (Schön, 1983). 

As early as the 1980s, Somekh saw the potential for action research as a means of embedding digital technologies into teachers’ professional practice as well as influencing their school, regional and even national policy (Somekh, 1989; Somekh, 1995; Somekh and Davis 1997; Somekh, 2005; Somekh, 2007). Hopkins described this process as turning reflection into a form of disciplined enquiry where the professional aims to understand, improve and reform (Hopkins, 1985, reversioned 2001). 

Criticism of the action research approach of the 1980s focused on the isolation of the teachers who were only involved in the design and production processes of a project in their own classroom. Government funded projects promoted the notion that teachers could reflect on their practice without leaving the classroom. Critics warned that lack of scholarship in these solitary programmes could result in teachers being unaware of relevant developments in their area of study (Saunders, 2002; Whitehead, 2006). For these reasons the term ‘practice-based’ research began to be used (Lamb and Simpson, 2003). This theory militated against the prevailing view of teachers as business managers rather than reflective and activist professionals influencing policy through research evidence (Sachs 2003).

In the case of practice-based research the teacher as the active agent forges together theory and practice into ‘praxis’, a high-level mode of professional operation where the practitioner does not only possess skills, but a deep knowledge and understanding of the theories that underpin practice. In The Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1968), Freire defined ‘praxis’ as "reflection and action upon the world in order to transform it." In this interpretation, oppressed people can join together to acquire a critical awareness of their own condition, and, with their allies, struggle for liberation. ‘Oppressed’ in this sense means those who are excluded from power structures i.e. those who are the objects of a top-down process, rather than subjects in their own right. ‘The oppressed’ might seem a strong term to apply to education professionals, yet there is a sense in which globally teachers have their autonomy restricted in their classrooms as other governments take a lead from the UK in defining national curricula and implementing examination league tables as a measure of teachers’ effectiveness and accountability. 

Constructionism was widely taken up by the profession in the 1960s and 1970s in order to break away from the paradigm where the teacher pontificated from the front watched by rows of pupils. But Askew and Carnell point out that in those decades the relationship between teachers and children was too cosy. World issues rarely intruded. In contrast, for Askew and Carnell, constructivism meant promoting transformative change both in the professional learning of the individual and within groups of professionals across schools, regions or even nations (Askew and Carnell, 1998). However, in the same decade managerialism in schools across the world halted some of these collaborative advances (Sachs 2003).

 Social Interaction

The third learning perspective, ‘social interaction’, expands Freire’s notion of the wider value of collaborative learning in social and cultural contexts in order to take charge of the agenda (1967). In fact this was the approach of the mediaeval Trade Guilds but digital communication made sharing ideas between members so much more regular.

One of the approaches to edtech CPD for teachers recommended by the Landscape Review is a greater concentration on the role of groups of professionals who meet informally to exchange the theories and practices (Daly, Pachler and Pelletier 2009a). A key term for this kind of collaborative exchange is ‘community of practice’ (CoP) first coined by Lave and Wenger (1991) to denote professional groups of people who engage in a process of collective learning in a shared domain of human endeavour. For example: 

• a tribe learning to survive, a band of artists seeking new forms of expression;

• a group of engineers working on similar problems;

• a clique of pupils defining their identity in the school;

• a network of surgeons exploring novel techniques, a gathering of first-time managers helping each other cope. 

In a nutshell: communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly (Wenger 2004). 

Scardamalia and Bereiter (1996) developed the idea further by bringing into the learning community a knowledge creation tool. They developed a learning platform, called the Knowledge Forum, designed to assist CoPs of young people to think collaboratively about key questions in the curriculum. Their combined contributions led to identification of gaps in their group knowledge that they fill as a team. The knowledge base is left for the next group. Instead of learning the same information, the new class absorbs the knowledge that is there and digs deeper. This way the school owns a knowledge base in which a pupil has ownership.