• Embed Doc
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
This article was downloaded by:
[University of Southampton] 
On:
6 July 2009 
Access details:
Access Details: [subscription number 773565842] 
Publisher
Routledge 
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Educational Action Research
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t716100708
Action research and reflective practice: towards a holistic view
Ruth Leitch
a
; Christopher Day
ba
Queen's University of Belfast, United Kingdom
b
University of Nottingham, United KingdomOnline Publication Date: 01 March 2000
To cite this Article
Leitch, Ruth and Day, Christopher(2000)'Action research and reflective practice: towards a holistic view',EducationalAction Research,8:1,179 — 193
To link to this Article: DOI:
10.1080/09650790000200108
URL:
Full terms and conditions of use:http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfThis article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 
 Educational Action Research, Volume 8, Number 1, 2000
179
 Action Research andReflective Practice:towards a holistic view
RUTH LEITCH
 
Queen’s University of Belfast, United Kingdom
CHRISTOPHER DAY
University of Nottingham, United Kingdom
 ABSTRACT Two concepts that have captured the imagination of the educationalcommunity in the last 60 years have been those of ‘reflective practice’ and‘action research’. Both, in their various forms, are considered to be criticaldimensions of the professional development of teachers. However, whilst both were receiving academic attention during the 1930s and 1940s (Lewin, 1934,cited in Adelman, 1993; Lewin, 1946; Dewey, 1933), it was not untilStenhouse’s (1975) notion of the teacher-as-researcher that the two came most compellingly into relationship and educational action research as a process, which held at its centre different kinds of reflection, began to be reformulated inBritain (Carr, 1993). This article considers the important part played inteachers’ development by different kinds of action research. Its central thesis isthat, although action research has a critical role to play not least as a means of  building the capacity of teachers as researchers of their own practice, there has been insufficient attention given to both the nature of reflection in the actionresearch process, and its relationship to the purposes, processes andoutcomes. The article challenges the rational, cognitive models of reflection that are implicit in much of the action research literature. It suggests that moreattention needs to be given to the importance of the role of emotion inunderstanding and developing the capacities for reflection which facilitatespersonal, professional and ultimately system change.
Reflection and Reflective Practice
... the way of teaching demands a long journey that does not have any easily identifiable destination ... It is a journey that I believe 
 D o w nl o ad ed  B y : [ U ni v e r si t y  of  S o u th a m p t o n]  A t : 15 :04 6  J ul y 2009
 
 Ruth Leitch & Christopher Day
180
must include a backward step into the self and it is a journey that is its own destination. (Tremmel, 1993, p. 456)
In any analysis, it is initially important to differentiate the terms ‘reflection’and ‘reflective practice’. Reflection is considered as a process or activity that is central to developing practices (Dewey 1933, 1938; Loughran, 1996).However, although it retains connotations of thinking processes andcontemplative self-examination, in this context it seems to remain more a metaphor for representing a process of learning from experience than a term which might be subject to more detailed analysis. In the literature, for example, reflection is predominantly associated with acts of cognition that are linked to learning ‘how’ rather than learning ‘about’ or ‘what’. Dewey (1933, p. 12) defined reflective thinking as a number of phases in thinking,i.e. a state of doubt, hesitation or mental difficulty in which thinkingoriginates, followed by an act of searching or inquiring to find material that  will resolve the doubt. In 1996, Loughran, drawing on the work of Dewey (1933) and Goodman (1984), defined reflection as ‘the deliberate andpurposeful act of thinking which centres on ways of responding to problemsituations’ (p. 14). Thus, reflection is associated with thinking and is judgedto involve the cognitive processes of both ‘problem finding’ and ‘problem-solving’, concepts which continue to fascinate in cognitive psychology (Arlin,1990; Csikszentmihalyi & Sawyers, 1995).It was Schön, in the mid-1980s, who distinctively popularised theimage of the ‘reflective practitioner’ by extending Dewey’s (1933)foundational ideas on reflection through observing how practitioners think in action. This led to Schön (1983) coining reflection-
on 
-action andreflection-
in 
-action as the two forms of reflective thinking. His model of the‘epistemology of practice’ (p. 49) was timely and well received within teacher education and research. According to Schön (1983) reflection-
in- 
actionacknowledges the tacit processes of 
thinking 
which accompany 
doing 
, and which constantly interact with and modify ongoing practice in such a way that learning takes place. Much of this may remain unconscious, tacit andunverbalised (Clark & Yinger, 1977), though Loughran (1996) suggests that,in meeting unanticipated problem situations, reflection-in-action comprisesreframing the problem and improvising on the spot so that the experience will be viewed differently. Reflection-
on 
-action, on the other hand, is viewedas teachers’ thoughtful consideration and retrospective analysis of their performance in order to gain knowledge from experience. Russell & Munby (1992) describe it succinctly as the ‘systematic and deliberate thinking back over one’s actions’ (p. 3). These two processes together, in Schön’s terms,form the core professional artistry of the reflective practitioner. Subsequent research has been focused on determining that reflective practice exists,and identifying enabling and disenabling conditions which affect its use,and the means by which it might be fostered within all levels of the teachingprofession.
 D o w nl o ad ed  B y : [ U ni v e r si t y  of  S o u th a m p t o n]  A t : 15 :04 6  J ul y 2009
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...