Educational Action Research

ISSN: 0965-0792 (Print) 1747-5074 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reac20

Constructive Action Research: a perspective on the

process of learning

Ron Ritchie

To cite this article: Ron Ritchie (1995) Constructive Action Research: a perspective on the
process of learning, Educational Action Research, 3:3, 305-322, DOI: 10.1080/0965079950030305

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0965079950030305

Published online: 11 Aug 2006.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2448

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=reac20
 Educational Action Research, Volume 3, No. 3, 1995

Constructive Action Research:

a perspective on the process
of learning

RON RITCHIE
Bath College of Higher Education, United Kingdom
ABSTRACT This paper describes an action research enquiry conducted by a
primary science tutor in Higher Education. It focuses on his work both with
students on an initial teacher education course and with qualified teachers on
in-service courses. The main theme of the paper concerns parallels between the
research process and the approach adopted by the researcher to teaching adult
learners. Both were underpinned by explicit epistemological assumptions based
on a constructivist view of learning. This view of learning led to a particular
approach to teaching, which was evaluated and refined over three years. The
emergence of these parallels was a metacognitive outcome of the enquiry that
led to the conceptualisation of 'constructive action research'. The paper explores
the extent to which his approach to the research was genuinely constructive. It
considers the links between the researcher's learning, that of the adult learners
he taught and the learning of the children they taught. The account includes
discussion of a multi-layered approach to analysis through a series of cycles
and reviews. A range of concerns, related to the researcher's teaching, were
identified through the analysis of classroom episodes. The account provides a
model of how multiple concerns can be addressed through systematic analysis
and action planning. It also highlights the significance of collaboration to action
research enquiries and provides an example of an enquiry combining
self-evaluation and the evaluation of a specific model of teaching. The criteria
that were used by the researcher to evaluate his enquiry are in the form of
questions that are applicable to other action research projects.

Introduction
This paper Is based upon an action research enquiry into adult learning in
science related to my teaching of students during their initial teacher
education course and groups of primary teachers on a science in-service
course. It seeks to show the value of the process undertaken and the way In
which that process evolved. Of particular interest is the way in which the
process and development of the action research enquiry became mirrored by
the structured approach I took to learning and teaching, and this in itself
became an integral part of coming to a greater understanding of adult
learning and my teaching strategies.
The main aims of the enquiry were to establish whether the adults I
was teaching increased their knowledge and understanding of scientific

305
RON RITCHIE
concepts, and also whether the teachers Involved changed their classroom
practice as a result of my use of a particular teaching approach. This
approach was based upon a constructlvlst view of learning. I analysed my
teaching during action research cycles and used this analysis In a formative
way to plan subsequent sessions. The data collected was wide-ranging and
allowed me to provide tentative answers to address the main alms of the
enquiry. It also revealed other benefits and issues related to my professional
role and understanding. The focus of this paper concerns the approach I
took to the enquiry and the insights I gained Into the nature of action
research. It explores the parallels between my approach to teaching, my
approach to research and my view of science. Common eplstemological
assumptions underpin all three areas. My teaching approach was based
upon a framework Involving phases of orientation, elicitation/structuring,
Intervention/restructuring, review and application. This framework proved
an appropriate one to conceptualise my approach to research which I term
'constructive action research'. Like children In the classroom, students In
training or teachers on In-service courses, I approached new learning,
through my research, with existing Ideas and values (in my case about
teaching and learning). These Ideas affected my approach and subsequent
learning: structuring my existing Ideas was necessary before I could
restructure them. The links between my learning, that of the adults I taught,
and that of the children they taught provide another strand of this paper.
Other aspects of my enquiry explored in this paper include the way In
which I dealt with a range of concerns which arose during the enquiry: a
multi-layered approach to analysis through a series of reviews during which
I revisited my concerns, data and action plans over several years; the
Involvement of colleagues in both co-teaching and collaborative roles; the
relationship between self-evaluation, and evaluation of a particular teaching
approach and course model.
The first sections of the paper outline the context of my enquiry and
the background to my decisions to use a constructlvlst approach to teaching
and an action research approach to the enquiry. I then discuss the
eplstemological assumptions and values underpinning my enquiry, and
outline Its nature and scope. There Is a treatment of the way data was
collected and analysed. The enquiry outcomes are explored In terms of
Insights gained concerning action research. This Is followed by a discussion
of the extent to which my research approach can be viewed as 'constructive'.

The Context of m y Enquiry

This section Indicates why the teaching of science to potential and qualified
primary teachers, which was the focus of the enquiry, is a priority in teacher
education. Science is a core subject In the National Curriculum In England
and Wales, and this has implications for the Initial and in-service education
of primary teachers. Although It is a responsibility of all teachers to teach
science to children at Key Stages 1 and 2 (DES/WO, 1991), research findings
indicate many primary teachers lack confidence to do this (Wragg et al,

306
 CONSTRUCTIVE ACTION RESEARCH
1989). A contributory factor is that primary teachers often lack an adequate
scientific knowledge base to inform their teaching. Research by the Primary
School Teachers and Science Project (PSTS) (PSTS Project, 1989-91) found
that many primary teachers held ideas about the world which did not
correspond to accepted scientific explanations. This is to be expected since
primary teachers are not required to have formal qualifications in science
and it is common to find experienced teachers without these, especially in
physics. Even current recruits to initial teacher education are not required to
have a qualification in science, if they are over a certain age, and existing
cohorts in institutions include students with limited scientific backgrounds.
Consequently, teacher education in primary science has to address the
development of adults' knowledge and understanding alongside the
development of their competence to teach science. I therefore decided to look
for ways of improving my own practice, which is aimed at helping primary
teachers become more effective teachers of science, and rigorously
investigate the impact of my practice on the adults I taught. A key aspect of
this addressed the development of scientific knowledge and understanding in
those adults.

Choosing an Approach to Teaching Adult Learners

Research in the secondary school sector, notably in this country through the
Children's Learning in Science Project (CLIS, 1984-91), and in the primary
sector through initiatives such as Science Processes and Concept
Exploration Project (SPACE, 1990-92) have indicated the potential of
adopting approaches to teaching science based upon a constructivist view of
learning (Driver & Oldham, 1986: Scott, 1987; Ollerenshaw & Ritchie, 1993).
Constructivists view learners as active constructors of their own
understanding. New understanding, within this perspective, is dependent
upon what a learner already knows and thinks, as well as new experience
s/he has and ideas that s/he is offered. New 'constructions' are built
through their relationship to previous experience and prior knowledge.
Personal knowledge is viewed, by constructivists, as provisional and the
process by which it is constructed is dynamic (von Glasersfeld, 1989). A
constructivist view of learning in science was endorsed in the National
Curriculum Non-statutory Guidance (NCC, 1989, p. A7).
There are various interpretations of 'constructivism' (see Davis et al,
1990; Willig, 1990; Ritchie, 1993). A significant difference in these
approaches concerns the extent to which learning is considered to be
affected by an individual's actions [originating in the work of Piaget (1929)]
or the social context in which it takes place [a view that comes from the work
of Vygotsky (1962)]. These different perspectives have implications for
teaching. It is not my intention in this paper to review this range of views,
my aim is more limited in that my enquiry focused upon one approach to
teaching underpinned by a constructivist epistemology. The approach
chosen was one which viewed individual and social dimensions of learning

307
RON RITCHIE

as equally significant and one based upon my previous experience of work

with young learners.
An approach I had found to be a practical and effective one when
working with children (Ollerenshaw & Ritchie, 1993) was advocated by Scott
(1987) and developed through an earlier research project In which I was
involved (Ollerenshaw et al, 1991). It involved structuring teaching around
phases of orientation (arousing a learner's interest and curiosity),
elicitation/structuring (helping the learner find out and clarify what they
already think, know and can do), intervention/restructuring (encouraging
the learner to test out ideas to extend, develop and replace them), review
(helping learners clarify changes In their thinking) and application
(encouraging learners to use new ideas and Integrate them Into everyday
thinking). My experience with adult learners and dissatisfaction with
approaches I was using led me to the conjecture that a similar approach
would be equally appropriate for adult learners. My enquiry was intended to
explore such a claim.

Choosing an Approach to Research

My decision to use action research was based upon experience I had had of
action enquiries In my previous role as a teacher, advisory teacher and
higher education tutor (Ollerenshaw et al, 1991; Ritchie, 1989; Ritchie &
Ollerenshaw, 1989). The nature, purposes and process involved (Ritchie,
1993, Chapter 6) made it appropriate for my use as a methodology for
attempting to Improve my practice and understanding of it. My enquiry can
be regarded as an attempt to answer the question, How can I Improve the
quality of my teaching through the use of a constructivist approach? An
action research framework of plan, act, observe and reflect provided a means
to systematically address that question. My enquiry was situatlonal and the
data I intended to collect was essentially qualitative. I was not seeking to
generate generalisable findings applicable in a range of contexts, although I
was looking to gain insights into the potential of the teaching approach and
course model I was evaluating. I was keen to engage in an enquiry In which
collaboration with colleagues could play an Integral part, and ethically I was
Intent upon pursuing an enquiry that would enhance and contribute to the
quality of my teaching and not Interfere with or impede that teaching. I was
also concerned that the values I held as a teacher were being 'denied in
action' and considered action research provided a means of enabling me to
more fully live out my values in action (Whitehead, 1989). Action research
was an approach to research which was congruent with the epistemological
and ontological assumptions that Informed my view of science.

Making my Epistemological Assumptions and Values Explicit

The constructivist epistemology that informed my view of children and adult
learning in science also held for my view of science and action research. The
assumption that personal knowledge Is tentative and provisional is

308
 CONSTRUCTIVE ACTION RESEARCH

fundamental to this. Its acquisition by individuals is taken to be an active

process of construction on the part of that individual. New understanding Is
the result of individuals' existing ideas, as well as experiences and ideas
offered by others. This epistemology is incompatible with a commonly-held
view of scientific knowledge as proven knowledge and scientific theories as
"derived In some rigorous way from the facts of experience acquired by
observation and experiment" (Chalmers, 1982, p. 1). An epistemology that
recognises knowledge as more tentative leads to a view of science as a
process of developing provisional theories about natural phenomena.
Scientists can never be absolutely objective and experiments can never
absolutely 'prove' something to be true. Scientific knowledge, as It can be
'known' by scientists, has a permanently conjectural nature (Popper, 1963):
the task of scientists can be conceptualised as a attempt to falsify current
theories and hypotheses. The construction of knowledge by scientists takes
place in a social context and this has significance to the nature of that
knowledge and the process by which it is constructed (Kuhn, 1970;
Medawar, 1979). Such a view allows for more than one theory to be
acceptable at any one time - it is therefore pluralist. It is a view that stresses
science as a human endeavour Involving rigorous and systematic testing of
Ideas. This is the view of science which informs my teaching and Its Is also
from this perspective that I have argued my action research enquiry was
scientific as others have done before. For example, Denley (1987, p. 194)
when Justifying his action research enquiry as 'scientific' draws interesting
parallels between action research and Popper's view of scientific enquiry.
As well as establishing a firm epistemological base for my enquiry from
the outset, I also made my educational values explicit so that I could
examine the extent to which they were realised in my teaching. For example,
my belief that learners should have control of their own learning was at odds
with the tight structuring of sessions I sometimes planned; my belief that
learning should be experiential contrasted with the reality of often offering
'accepted' scientific ideas through exposition. I set out to Identify my values
by analysing my professional biography and previous approaches to teaching
children and adults. This then provided an agenda to inform my later
analysis of what I was actually doing when teaching adults.

Scope and Outline of my Enquiry

I engaged in action research cycles, over several years, linked to my work
with initial teacher education (ITE) students and teachers on in-service
courses. The work on in-service courses involved work with two cohorts from
different Local Education Authorities (LEAs) on 20-day DFE-designated
courses. These courses were spread over a whole academic year and funded
by the DFE with the specific intention of improving primary teachers'
scientific knowledge base (Harland & Kinder, 1992). The courses model my
colleagues and I developed included five cycles of four full days focused on a
specific scientific content area. Each cycle comprised three centre-based
days and one school-based day and involved directed activities in school

309
RON RITCHIE
between course sessions. These activities and written assignments produced
by participants were focused upon action enquiries of their own choosing.
During college-based sessions with students and teachers. I implemented a
constructlvlst approach based upon phases of orientation, ellcitatlon,
intervention and application. The courses were run in collaboration with
colleagues from my own institution and a neighbouring one where an
Identical DFE-designated course was running. The teaching approach and
DFE course structure we developed are discussed more fully elsewhere
(Ollerenshaw, 1993; Ritchie, 1995a).

Data Collection a n d Analysis

Evidence used to evaluate my use of a constructlvist approach came from a
variety of data: audiotaped recordings of sessions and records of Individual
teacher's utterances; notes kept by teachers during sessions; posters and
outcomes from group discussions and practical work; concept maps
completed by participants before, during and after sessions (Novak & Gowin,
1984); my own field notes and those of other tutors co-teaching sessions;
case studies from teachers' classroom work; specific assessment tasks
tackled during and after sessions; questionnaires used at the beginning and
end of the courses, and other evaluation data provided by teachers and
students.
I Interviewed a sample of ITE students several months after my
teaching sessions and observed them working with children In the same
content area as that covered during the sessions. I also interviewed a sample
of teachers on the in-service courses (during and after the courses had
finished) to evaluate outcomes from these sessions. These interviews
included questions related to the scientific content of the sessions and to the
nature of their current teaching. Evidence from these interviews allowed me
to assess whether scientific understanding resulting from the sessions was
retained up to nine months later. Evidence of impact In classrooms was
gathered in a number of ways, some of which Involved self-reported activity
by teachers, but others Included visits, observations and reports from third
parties.
Consequently, my data was wide-ranging and from a variety of sources
which allowed me through triangulatlon procedures to verify data and gather
as accurate a picture as practical of what was going on during teaching
sessions to Inform my understanding of those sessions and their impact
upon participants.
My analysis of sessions was based upon categories devised as a result
of my first attempts to deal with the data from my first 'exploratory' research
cycle. The categories included consideration of my teaching approach, the
nature of science implicit in the sessions, alternative Ideas held by
Individuals that did not correspond to accepted scientific ideas (especially
the extent to which certain alternative Ideas were common within the group)
and any evidence of restructuring of those alternative Ideas (as a result of
tutor Intervention and/or participants' activity).

310
 CONSTRUCTIVE ACTION RESEARCH

When analysing the nature of the teaching approach I considered the

extent to which course participants had been adequately orientated to the
content and provided with opportunities to structure their existing Ideas, the
means by which I elicited those existing ideas, challenged them If
appropriate, encouraged restructuring and facilitated application of
restructured ideas. My reflections on sessions also addressed my role and
the nature of the Input offered, as well as the balance between unstructured
exploratory activity and more systematic Investigative work. The analysis of
the nature of science implicit and explicit In the sessions involved
consideration of the relationship between science processes and content, my
treatment of the provisional nature of scientific knowledge and the social
context In which scientific knowledge and understanding was developed.
These categories remained the ones used throughout my enquiry for the
initial analysis of data from each case study. A case study covered individual
teaching sessions for ITE students and 4-day cycles for In-service work.
One on the means by which my analysis was validated was through
discussions (formal and Informal) with colleagues (Including those
co-teaching with me and others not directly involved, but Interested in the
approach under consideration), students and course participants during
which my data and my analysis was shared with them. On some occasions
the data became the means by which the students/teachers reviewed their
own learning.
Detailed analysis of sessions enabled me to identify a range of concerns
about my teaching. These concerns, articulated as questions In my analysis,
and my attempt to address them through action research cycles led to
changes to my practice which were sytematically evaluated through a
multi-layered approach to analysis. This involved revisiting my data on a
number of occasions from different perspectives In order to gain Insights.
This process helped me clarify the strengths and weaknesses of my teaching
and the approach I had adopted. The concerns I identified were wide-ranging
and grounded In the data I collected and analysed. They Included: Am I
providing an appropriate orientation period for adult learners? What view of
science do students gain from the sessions and my teaching? To what extent
should I encourage individuals to expose their existing ideas publicly?
Should I attempt to deal with every 'alternative idea' or framework identified
or focus upon common ones? Do I allow learners adequate time for practical
exploration and investigation? The identification of this range led to a major
dilemma: should I focus upon one key concern/Issue (as I had done during
previous enquiries and encouraged others to do the same) or attempt to
address the range of concerns concurrently during the plan, act and reflect
cycles of my research? A key factor In the decision became my recognition
that, once identified, a concern would inevitably affect future professional
decisions. Having gained an Insight into the extent to which my practice did
not reflect my educational values, that Insight cannot, somehow, be put
aside and ignored. Consequently, I resolved to tackle the range of concerns
as systematically as possible within the constraints I was working in. My
review of the literature at this stage indicated that only McNiff (1988)

311
RON RITCHIE
provided evidence of dealing with multiple concerns explicitly during an
enquiry and her approach conceptualised other concerns spiralling off the
main concern. This approach did not address my intention of dealing with
more than one concern in a particular cycle as integral aspects of my main
concern related to Improving my teaching through the use of a constructivist
approach. I therefore needed to develop a novel approach. I devised a
'framework' in order to analyse my concerns so that I could make decisions
about how they could best be addressed and consequently my practice made
more effective. This framework involved three sets of categories. The first
concerned the time scale required to address the concern (short, medium
and long term), the second concerned the nature of the change required to
address the concern (structural; my role; my knowledge and understanding
of science; my knowledge and understanding of professional Issues; the
ethos of sessions; teaching strategies) and the final set indicated the relative
difficulty of these changes (straightforward; possible with effort; possible
with professional support from others and impossible). I then. In
collaboration with my colleagues, developed action plans for future sessions
informed by this analysis. My colleagues played a vital role in offering new
perspectives and suggestions for new ways forward. They also helped me
decide upon the best of the options available and plan in detail how a new
idea could be integrated into a teaching session. For example, 'non-public'
strategies for eliciting existing ideas, based upon the use of concept maps
(Novak & Gowln, 1984; Brodie, 1992), were suggested and explored as a
group before being added to an action plan. These discussions, based upon
data analysis, led to the next cycle of my research during which the range of
concerns were addressed to different extents.
My subsequent analysis of my practice, as I engaged In further action
research cycles, also involved evaluation of this framework in terms of its
effectiveness as a tool for helping me deal systematically with the concerns
identified (which increased in number during the cycles).
In the final phase, during which I also analysed interview data,
sumniative evaluative data and written outcomes, I looked for evidence of the
extent to which the students and teachers involved in the in-service course
have retained and used restructured scientific ideas some months after the
teaching sessions, and the extent to which the improved understanding of
scientific ideas and teaching strategies had impacted upon their classroom
practice. I revisited my analyses and evaluations using the framework in
order to look for significant aspects, in the light of my further reading of
relevant literature and discussion with others. This last review provided
evidence of the success of the framework in helping me identify the
relationship between my concerns and the particular significance of certain
ones, such as the extent to which I was able to help teachers use ideas
elicited from children to further develop their own scientific knowledge and
understanding.

312
 CONSTRUCTIVE ACTION RESEARCH

Figure 1 Kf,.CS Case Study

Research Process

Figure 1. Research process.

Therefore, my enquiry Involved a multi-layered approach to analysis through
a series of four reviews, over three years. The relationship between these
reviews and the case studies they refer to is illustrated by Figure 1.
From this it can be seen that at every stage of analysis or review,
previous data and analyses were revisited, and used to Inform Insights,
claims and decisions. In the first review, each concern was addressed In
turn, referenced to specific evidence from the relevant case study. This
approach to analysis contrasts with the analysis of sessions (Included In
each case study) which used the themes for analysis outlined above. In
Reviews 2 and 3, I revisited each of my concerns through the use of the

313
RON RITCHIE
framework in order to evaluate progress and set new targets in terms of
future action. For example, in addressing the concern about orientation
(which had arisen after analysis of a session involving a very short
orientation to the area covered by the session) I evaluated two different
strategies. I implemented and analysed a session when this was handled in
an unstructured way involving the non-directed exploration of a collection of
objects and the use of video material. Analysis of this strategy indicated the
potential during this for eliciting existing ideas and therefore in the next
cycle I focused upon ways in which my interactions during this phase of the
work could provide assessment evidence of existing ideas to inform teaching
decisions.
At the stage of Review 2, I identified the extent to which my approach
to orientation needed to differentiate according to the previous experience of
the participants and the extent to which the approach adopted during course
sessions was Influencing their reported approaches in school. These insights
resulted from reflection upon other concerns Including the success of
different strategies for getting participants to track their own learning and for
eliciting their current understanding. During the cycles between Reviews 2
and 3, orientation and elicltation were approached more holistically, allowing
participants more control of their own learning, but the purposes of
orientation activities with children were made more explicit and discussed
with participants. Review 3 led me to identify progress and the extent to
which the concern had been addressed. However, at that stage I also
considered the way in which pre-session tasks could also provide orientation
opportunities and further enhance the quality of participants' learning.
Review 4 was structured around the phases of the constructivist
approach I was using and focused upon two 'key' concerns Identified
through the use of the framework during Review 3. These were concerns that
I discovered subsumed some others and were still unsatisfactorily dealt with
and understood. These addressed the balance between participants'
exploratory and investigative practical work and the relationship between
children's and adults' ideas in science. Revisiting these concerns during
Review 4 offered me new Insights and an agenda for future action. For
example, at that stage I became more aware of the significance of my own
interactions with participants during activities when they were analysing
episodes of children's learning. Looking at data from this perspective I
understood the importance of making the relationship between children's
ideas and their own more explicit and the focus of further analysis on their
part.
The format of presentation I adopted, which includes my case studies
as a separate volume, allows the reader of the original enquiry (Ritchie,
1993) to track back from concerns or claims to earlier reviews where they are
discussed or originate, to the case study, the data analysis and often the
specific evidence which led to the particular concern or claim.

314
 CONSTRUCTIVE ACTION RESEARCH

Enquiry Outcomes
It is not my Intention in this paper to discuss the outcomes related to the
main aims of the enquiry which I have reported elsewhere (Ritchie, 1995a).
The evidence collected and analysed tentatively allowed me to claim that my
use of the constructivist approach with adult learners was successful in
terms of improving their scientific knowledge base and had an impact upon
their classroom practice, although the factors accounting for that success,
particularly the latter aim in the context of the DFE course, included other
aspects related to the course structure such as the use of school-based days
(Ollerenshaw, 1993). The following discussion focuses upon my use of action
research and insights gained. It also explores the parallels between
children's learning, teachers' learning and my own.
My understanding of the process involved in action research was
'restructured' as a result of my enquiry. I came to understand the limitations
of the more prescriptive schemata advocated in the literature (Ebbutt, 1983;
Elliott, 1991; Kemmis & McTaggart, 1982) and also the extent to which an
enquiry can address a range of professional concerns rather than focus upon
one. I developed a practical and constructive approach to dealing with a
variety of concerns in an holistic way using a systematic means of analysing
those concerns. As discussed, this involved me in making a number of
concurrent changes to my practice and evaluating those changes through
single plan/act/observe/reflect cycles. To facilitate these two strategies were
employed: the use of a analytical framework for dealing with the concerns in
terms of their nature and means of potential resolution; the use of a
multi-layed analysis of data through a series of structured reviews over a
period of several months. These two strategies were intended to ensure that
the complexity of dealing with multiple concerns did not lead to a reduction
in the rigour of the enquiry. For a practitioner this multi-layered analysis
can lead to insights that are not evident from initial analysis or discussion
with colleagues. It is my experience that the process can lead to a developing
awareness of the inter-relatedness of concerns and the Identification of key
ones, requiring most attention.
My enquiry also provided me with insights into the collaborative
aspects of action research. My colleagues made significant contributions to
my enquiry in a number of ways: as validators in terms of decisions about
data based upon their own direct and indirect experience of working with the
same or similar groups, often In a co-teaching role; as collaborators in terms
of generating strategies for dealing with concerns, some of which were
shared-concerns; as role models (providing evidence for the purpose of
evaluating strategies) when they were teaching the groups Involved in the
enquiry; as 'critical friends' constantly prepared to discuss my research and
its progress. My enquiry was considerably enriched by the opportunity to
observe other colleagues teaching the same group and receive comments
from colleagues about my own teaching. This provided teachers on the
course with further evidence of 'practicing what we preach' since as tutors

315
RON RITCHIE
we were encouraging them to recognise the benefits of collaborative work
with fellow course members and with colleagues back in their schools. Our
explicit use of a collaborative mode for our own professional development
reinforced the value of this.
Another significant dimension to the enquiry relates to the relationship
between self-evaluation, and the evaluation of a particular approach and the
course model through which It was implemented. My enquiry provides an
example of how those two alms can be dealt with holistically in order for the
same evidence to be used for both purposes. Recognising the evaluative
purpose of my enquiry, beyond simply attempting to improve my practice,
led me to collect data which was illuminating when considered as part of my
self-evaluation. Similarly, looking closely at my own use of an approach and
course model enriched my attempt to make evaluative judgments about that
approach and the course structure in which it was implemented.
I gained insights into the evaluation of an action research enquiry. In
reflecting upon my enquiry and attempting to address the criteria I set
myself at the outset I realised that my understanding of the concepts
Involved had been restructured. The key questions I used to evaluate my
research were:
• To what extent was my enquiry educational?
• To what extent was my enquiry scientific?
• To what extent was my enquiry ethical?
• To what extent was my enquiry collaborative?
• To what extent was my enquiry being communicated effectively?
These criteria are based upon the work of Whitehead & Foster (1984) and
Winter (1989), although I consider there to be original aspects to the way I
have conceptualised and dealt with them. To take one of these areas, for
example, that concerning the extent to which my enquiry was educational, I
generated a further set of questions which I addressed:
• Are my educational values made explicit?
• Was the enquiry of relevance to me, my colleagues and others?
• Is there evidence that I was open to changes in my practice and prepared
to take risks?
• Are changes to my practice evidence of my educational values being lived
out more fully?
• Is there evidence that these changes are embedded In my current
practice?
• Is there evidence that I am aware of the nature of my own learning?
• Is the interaction between theory and practice evidence In the enquiry?
• Is there evidence that the enquiry was original and of value to others?
In exploring these criteria and the extent to which they were addressed
(Ritchie, 1993. pp. 468 - 480) I came to understand the concept of
'educational' as fundamental to effective action research. In particular, the
metacognltlve aspects of my learning, evidenced by the discussion below
concerning "constructive action research', provided an essential dimension of

316
 CONSTRUCTIVE ACTION RESEARCH

this concept. My reading of Carr & Kemmis (1986), McNiff (1988) and others
had introduced me to the notion of 'educational action research", but my
understanding was considerably enhanced when it became grounded in my
own experience. Similarly, my understanding of theory and practice, and the
dynamic and inextricable relationship between them was changed: my
enquiry began with an exploration of my practice, and my personal theories
and values which underpinned it, and led through systematic investigation
of that practice to reconstructed personal theories and values which were
grounded in the new practice which resulted. This recognition of the
interdependence of theory and practice became a concept I 'understood'
through the experience of the enquiry.
Similar sets were generated and addressed for each key criterion and in
each case I was able to identify the extent to which my understanding of the
concepts involved (scientific, educational, ethical, collaborative and
communicative) had changed.
The extent to which a constructivist approach, such as that I
evaluated, is one which can be applied to teaching and learning in different
areas led me to the notion of'constructive action research'.
I came to realise, during my enquiry, that it could be conceptualised in
terms of different phases which paralleled the phases of my approach to
teaching and that my learning could be conceptualised in the same way as
that of those I was teaching. A period of orientation occurred prior to the
submission of a formal research proposal for the purposes of accreditation
(September 1989) during which I was beginning to think about the enquiry
and its direction. As a result of relatively unsystematic reflection upon my
existing practice, talking to others and doing background reading I identified
the direction for my enquiry, which I described earlier with the question,
"How can I improve the quality of my practice through the use of a teaching
approach based upon a constructivist view of learning?". This phase can also
be compared to the exploratory phase of scientific activity (implemented
during my teaching with children or adults) intended to raise questions for
subsequent investigation. A period of structuring/elicitation followed
(October 1989 - December 1989) during which I began, with the help of
colleagues, to clarify my existing understanding of my practice, my
educational values and, to some extent, my understanding of action
research. This was also an exploratory period although I began to look at my
practice In a more systematic way. The first two case studies cover this
phase and it was through analysis of data from those teaching sessions that
I identified the range of concerns referred to above, as a series of questions,
which became the focus of my consideration of changes to my practice. A
review of those case studies (April 1990) signalled the beginning of the
investigative period of my enquiry. This parallels the
restructuring/intervention phase of my teaching approach. Over the next
year, through cycles of 'plan/act/observe/reflect', I evaluated a variety of
new teaching strategies and modifications to my role as a teacher and used
the framework for analysing concerns to review my progress (December 1990
and March 1991). It was during this period that my understanding of my

317
RON RITCHIE
practice and of action research were being changed. In the same way as I
hoped teachers would restructure their understanding as a result of my
teaching, I was aware that my own understanding was being restructured
through the process of my enquiry and the intervention of my peers with
whom I was collaborating. This restructuring was facilitated by the process
of analysing data and discussing It with others. An application phase
followed (from March 1991 to December 1992) during which I applied new
Insights to my practice and my new professional understanding to other
contexts and teaching (Including design and technology [see Ritchie, 1995b],
assessment, research methods and educational enquiry-based courses). A
final review in January 1993 drew upon the range of data available to
discuss the tentative insights gained from the enquiry. I was able, at this
stage to evaluate the extent to which changes I implemented during earlier
cycles had become 'embedded' in my practice, and informed the everyday
professional decisions taken during planning and teaching. I also revisited
the extent to which my educational values were being lived out more fully in
my professional practice.
I was encouraging teachers to reflect upon their own learning and
recognise the value of that metacognitlve outcome. A similar outcome was
evident in my enquiry. I was actively constructing an understanding of my
practice in the social context of my peer group in parallel with the students
and teachers who were constructing an understanding of science, and their
own professional practice, as a result of my teaching. In the social context of
their peer group.
The conceptualisation of action research in terms of orientation,
structuring, restructuring, review and application Is, therefore, one strand of
my rationale for the notion of "constructive action research'. Another is based
upon the common epistemological assumptions underpinning my teaching
and research. The coherence of my approach to teaching and research is
based upon these assumptions.
In the following section I will explore further the extent to which a
constructivist view of learning, with its emphasis upon the learner as the
active constructor of her/his own knowledge and understanding, can be
used to conceptualise learning at several levels: children's learning of science
in the classroom; adults' learning in science and development of professional
knowledge in initial and in-service education; the development of my own
professional knowledge through this enquiry. I will begin by summarising
similarities between children's learning In science and adult learning In
science and in the area of professional knowledge, I identified during and as
a result of my enquiry:
• scientific and professional knowledge as understood by an Individual can
best be viewed as provisional and subject to change;
• an Individual can gain understanding through the 'testing' or checking of
ideas against experience and the ideas of others;
• all learners approach new learning with some existing ideas based upon
experience or values they hold - whether it be children's ideas about how

318
 CONSTRUCTIVE ACTION RESEARCH
a toy moves, scientists' ideas about the particulate nature of matter,
teachers' concerning how a classroom should be organised, or an action
researcher concerned about the nature of his or her educational values;
• the development of new ideas and understanding is a result of existing
ideas and what learners do with new information and experiences;
• learners will retain existing ideas unless they find them inadequate in
some way;
• learners can benefit from time and support to structure existing ideas,
and articulate those ideas before having them challenged (if necessary or
appropriate);
• restructuring is an active process for the learner for which s/he needs to
take responsibility;
• new ideas, integrated into a conceptual framework are of most value if
they can be used in new contexts, beyond the specific context in which
they have been met.
Each of these statements holds, in my experience, whether the ideas are
'scientific' or 'professional', and whether the learner is child or adult. The
importance of the development of knowledge and understanding as an
individual activity in a social context is implied in these statements, and this
holds for scientific and professional domains.
Crucially, in the context of my notion of 'constructive action research',
they also hold for my learning which resulted from my action research.
As well as a constructivist view of knowledge underpinning my
approach to action research, that approach can be seen as 'constructive' in
other ways which parallel the 'constructive' dimension of my own teaching
and that advocated in the teachers/students with whom I worked. As
teachers support learners in actively constructing an understanding of the
world around them, they themselves are actively constructing an
understanding of the learner's cognitive structures, and current skills and
attitudes. Their reconstructed understanding of the Individual child's
learning needs leads to decisions about appropriate interventions. These
decisions are therefore 'constructive'. This holds for me as a teacher with
adult learners as it does for classroom teachers working with young learners.
My approach during my enquiry has similar constructive aspects. For
example, during the exploratory case studies I was actively constructing an
understanding of my own practice In order to make constructive decisions
about appropriate changes; having identified through another constructive
process a range of concerns, I constructed a framework for analysing those
concerns and tackling them. Throughout, therefore, I was engaging in
constructive and reconstructive elements. I am not the first, of course, to
recognise this in the context of action research (Carr & Kemmis, 1986), but I
have found little evidence in the literature of the parallels between teaching
and research as discussed above.
My approach to research was also, fundamentally, 'constructive' in the
sense that it enabled me to construct an improved understanding of my
professional practice, and construct new and effective strategies and

319
RON RITCHIE
approaches to teaching. A constructivist epistemology enabled me to
understand the nature of my own professional knowledge and action
research provided the tool to develop changes to my practice. Therefore, the
term 'constructive action research' seems appropriate.

Conclusion
My learning, during my enquiry was affected by the existing values and
understanding I had at the outset. It was also affected by the social context
in which the enquiry was implemented. A recognition of this led me to
consider the ways in which the phases of the 'constructivist' approach to
teaching I was using could be helpful in conceptualising my own learning. As
discussed above, I explored the extent to which orientation,
elicitation/structuring, intervention/restructuring, review and application
were evident in my research. I found parallels and therefore consider the
framework to be usefully descriptive of the process in which I engaged and
one which can be used by action researchers to analyse their own enquiries.
It provides a means of conceptualising the purpose and potential of each
phase, both in terms of cognitive and practical domains. The orientation
period can help a would-be researcher become aware of the aspects of their
professional practice which might be explored and lead to a general concern.
The structuring phase involves the researcher clarifying what they already
think about or understand about their practice, through exploration of that
practice. It can lead to more specific questions and concerns, and involve the
clarification of the researcher's educational values and the extent to which
they are reflected in that practice. Systematic investigation of improvements
to that practice through plan/act/observe/reflect cycles can lead to
restructuring. Review helps the researcher understand changes that have
been implemented and their implications for future practice. The application
phase is when new understandings and teaching strategies are used in
different contexts in order to embed them in the practice of the teacher
researcher.
I set out upon the journey that constituted my enquiry with the hope
and expectation that it would be productive in improving the quality of my
teaching and develop my understanding of that practice. However, during
the period when I was engaging in the process of the enquiry and reflecting
upon that process I became aware of the extent to which my understanding
of the nature of the enquiry and the research methodology that underpinned
it were changing. The restructuring which was occurring provided further
impetus and enthusiasm for what I was doing. Consequently, as well as
achieving my original intentions of improving the quality of my teaching and
understanding of my professional behaviour, I also gained an improved
understanding of action research. Whether the notion of constructive action
research will prove helpful to others undertaking their own journeys of
professional development is for them to say. For me it helped provide
coherence to different aspects of my practice and enquiry and therefore
enhanced my understanding of my professional activity.

320
 CONSTRUCTIVE ACTION RESEARCH

Correspondence
Dr Ron Ritchie, Department for Professional Development, Bath College of
Higher Education, Newton Park, Newton St Loe, Bath BA2 9BN, United
Kingdom.

References
Brodie, T. (1992) Concept mapping for differential assessment, School Science Review,
74, pp. 130-132.
Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming Critical: knowing through action research.
Lewes: Falmer Press.
Chalmers, A. (1982) What is this Thing called Science? 2nd edn. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Children's Learning in Science Project (CLIS) (1984-91) Various Research Reports.
Leeds: Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education (CSSME),
University of Leeds.
Davis, R., Maher, C. & Noddings, N. (1990) Suggestions for the improvement of
mathematics education, in Constructivist Views on the Teaching and Learning of
Mathematics, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Monograph, No. 4.
Denley, P. (1987) The development of an approach to practitioner research initiated
through classroom observation and of particular relevance to the evaluation of
innovation in science teaching. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Bath.
Department of Education and Science/Welsh Office (DES/WO) (1991) Science in the
National Curriculum: revised orders. London: HMSO.
Driver, R. & Oldham, V. (1986) A constructlvist approach to curriculum development
in science. Studies in Science Education, 13, pp. 105-122.
Ebbutt, D. (1983) Educational Action Research: some general concerns and specific
quibbles, mimeo. Cambridge: Cambridge Institute of Education.
Elliot, J. (1991) Action Research for Educational Change. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Harland, J . & Kinder, K. (1992) Mathematics and Science Courses: lessons for the
future. Slough: NFER.
Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (1982) The Action Research Planner. Geelong:
Deakin University Press.
Kuhn, T. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edn. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
NcNiff, J . (1988) Action Research: principles and practice. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Medawar, P. (1979) Is the Scientific Paper a Fraud? London: BBC Publications.
National Curriculum Council (NCC) (1989) Non-Statutory Guidance for Science. York:
NCC.
Novak, J. & Gowin, D. (1984) Learning How to Learn. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Ollerenshaw, C. (1993) Five vital days. Journal of Teacher Development, 2(1),
pp. 14-20.

321
RON RITCHIE
Ollerenshaw, C. & Ritchie, R. (1993) Primary Science: making it work. London:
David Fulton.
Ollerenshaw, C. (ed.) (1991) Constructive Teacher Assessment Pack. Bristol: National
Primary Centre (SW), University of the West of England.
Plaget, J. (1929) The Child's Conception of the World. London: Harcourt Brace.
Popper, K. (1963) Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Primary School Teachers and Science (PSTS) Project (1988-91) Working Papers 1-12.
Oxford: Oxford University Department of Educational Studies/Westminster
College.
Ritchie, R. (1989) Encouraging computer use-an advisory teacher perspective,
Microscope Special, Autumn, pp. 24-25.
Ritchie, R. (1993) An evaluation of a practitioner's approach to the initial and
in-service education of teachers in primary science based upon a constructivist
view of learning. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Bath.
Ritchie, R. (1995a) Adults' Learning in Science-a constructivst approach to in-service
education, Journal for Teacher Development, May, pp. 5-17.
Ritchie, R. (1995b) Design and Technology: a process for learning. London:
David Fulton.
Ritchie, R. & Ollerenshaw, C. (1989) Looking at learning. Primary Science Review,
10 (Summer), pp. 22-23.
Science Processes and Concept Exploration Project (SPACE) (1990-92) Primary SPACE
Project Research Reports. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
Scott, P. (1987) A Constructivist View of Learning and Teaching Science. Leeds: Centre
for Studies In Science and Mathematics Education (CSSME), University of Leeds.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1989) Learning as a constructive activity, in: Murphy, P. & Moon,
B. (Eds) Developments in Learning and Assessment. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1962) Though and Language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Whltehead, J. (1989) Creating a living educational theory from questions of the kind
'How do I improve my practice?' Cambridge Journal of Education, 19, pp. 3-17.
Whitehead, J. & Foster, D. (1984) Action research and professional development.
Cambridge Action Research Network (CARN) Bulletin No. 6. Norwich: CARN
Publications.
Willig, C.J. (1990) Children's Concepts and the Primary Curriculum. London:
Paul Chapman.
Winter, R. (1989) Learningfrom Experience. Lewes: Falmer Press.
Wragg, E.C., Bennett, S.N. & Carre, C.G. (1989) Primary Teachers and the National
Curriculum, Research Papers in Education, 4(3), pp. 17-31.

322