Developing teacher professional development programmes through practice-based research principle

Definitions of practice-based research

Constructivism and Constructionism 

In this MESHGuide we are now concentrating on one particular approach to CPD which educators who formed the MirandaNet Fellowship developed. This international professional organisation was founded by Dr Christina Preston in 1992. Central to that organisation was 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 learners’ own experiences.

Constructivism is not a specific learning theory and it is more appropriate to talk about constructionism (Papert, 1986) which was 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. The mediational role is advocated strongly by Alan November in his book,’Empowering Students with Technology’ (2009). Teaching ‘at’ students - the ‘information transmission’ pedagogical model 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 ‘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 methodologies for researching the effectiveness of 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 say, 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 1998; 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. In England, 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 governments define national curricula and implement examination league tables as a measure of teachers’ effectiveness and accountability. 

Constructionism was widely taken up by the teaching 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 (1998) 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).