The Role of the Constructivist Approach in this Study

Roberts (1998) proposes that the use of the constructivist approach offers the most acceptable framework for understanding teaching. This is because it recognizes the interdependence of the personal and social dimensions of teacher development. Effective knowledge is represented in the interpretation of several views informing what constitutes the knowledge base of the in-service training experienced by teachers. Drawing on research on the development of teacher knowledge, Freeman & Johnson (1998:411) understand that “a social constructivist view of language learning would seem to interface more directly with the nature of classroom language learning.”

For constructivists, the context of knowledge is as significant as the constructed knowledge of the individual. Abdal-Haqq (1998) claims that constructivism views education as a form of social development where individuals evolve within their socio-cultural context. Research informed by constructivism discovers these perceptions and is not limited by what is traditionally accepted about the knowledge base needed, for example, by the experienced teacher in in-service training. Crotty (1998:15) emphasized that “instead, such research invites us to approach the object in a radical spirit of openness to its potential for new or richer meaning. It is an invitation for reinterpretation.” Therefore, the truth is a not a discovery but rather a construction. Thus, the theoretical perspective informing this study is both interpretive and constructivist.

Interpretivism provides a chance for understanding teachers’ knowledge and beliefs from the inside-out. This is by Pring (2004:100) who claims that “To understand particular events, one must see things from the point of view of the participants or the people who are involved – how they interpret events and thereby constitute those events of a certain sort.” Moreover, an explanatory or interpretive method of inquiry is helpful in investigating and understanding teachers’ knowledge and beliefs. A clear expression of, and making obvious, one’s cognitive processes for lived experiences may lead to improved awareness of the practice and a better understanding of the reasoning behind it. It is this reasoning which is more significant than the learned practice itself. In many instances, the continuous reiteration of the same actions in a given

103

practice would become repetitive act devoid of any meaning. It is essential that a reflective exercise not be lost during the practice to avoid such a routine practice. If the actions are accompanied by a reflection, they become not sensitive to the context or the circumstances of the condition being encountered.

One of the proposals of interpretivism, which is particularly associated with qualitative research, is that our knowledge of reality relies on our understanding which is the result of reflection on surrounding events, and not just experience (Snape & Spencer, 2003). Thus, it is important to highpoint the interpretive phases of knowing and the significance of both the participants’ and investigator’s interpretations and understanding of practice and the underpinning knowledge.

Also, this research is informed by a constructivist stance. Constructivism in epistemology is matched with relativism in the ontology (Crotty, 1998). The reason for this is that the reality of an object is the sense made of it. Crotty (1998:64) elegantly stated to this effect that: “We will obviously hold our understandings much more lightly and tentatively and far less dogmatically, seeing them as historically and culturally effected interpretations rather than eternal truths of some kind.” In the context of the research presented here, the reality of knowledge of training is constructed from the perceptions of the teachers. This knowledge is influenced by the context they work in and the experiences they go through. Moreover, the meanings they convey are personally formed and practically oriented. This could expose the culturally situated nature of their knowledge and practices and as a result, the many realities that exist in the cognizance and activities of the participants. This in fact applied to many teachers in different contexts as “[much of the teachers’] practical knowledge is situational, empirical, and related (Crotty, 1998, 64). The need to involve teachers when investigating their knowledge is emphasized. Connelly, Clandinin & He (1997) argued that teachers are not just screens who translate others’ intentions and ideologies into practice. This is sensible given that teachers come to the educational situation with their philosophies, values, and theories. Their previous experience, schooling, and education also work as filters before they adopt certain philosophies. So,

104

teachers’ voices must be heard. Also, classroom and schools are sites where new meanings and understandings are created and shared (Fitzclarence, 2003). Teachers are not mere consumers of others’ ideas. Besides, practical ideas about teaching are informed by what happens in real classroom practices. If research on training and professional teaching is to highlight the practical aspects of teachers’ work, it requests to acknowledge teachers as co-producers of knowledge. Rogers (2007) confirmed the significance of involving practitioners as integral players and leaders in developing the knowledge needed to carry out educational reform. In doing so, it is vital to acknowledge, respect and effectively seek, the expertise that practitioners bring to the difficult task of improving schools. Similarly, Sen (2002) raised the argument which says that teachers’ opinions need to be recognized to increase educational reform in the post-modern age. With the development of technology, its impact on the lifestyle of younger generations is dynamic, and the demand for the teachers to improve their practice and accommodate these changes grows. However, without taking into account teachers’ opinions and views, any educational reform initiative would lack an important source of knowledge to implement change.

Neglecting teachers’ views could have a negative impact on the planned results of the introduced changes. Indeed, acknowledgment of teachers’ opinions and actions will provide in-depth analysis and understanding of these views, and will ultimately contribute to helping them understand and reflect on their practice and transform their knowledge (Sonneville, 2007). In agreement with this premise, Husu (2004) highlighted that it is essential for those who want to understand teachers’ practice and to learn to take a vested interest in teachers’ accounts of the teaching and learning process.

Research on teaching, which is responsive to teachers’ opinions, needs to adopt a constructivist rather than a positivist approach. Richards (1994:402) launches criticism against the positivist approach when researching teachers’ knowledge and, instead, approves a constructivist approach arguing:

“A view of knowledge as an external body of information is likely to lead to a focus on imparting that information, on content; if the knower is not separated from the known, the focus is more

105

likely to be on engagement and exploration. This rather crude formulation of a complex debate revolving around the rejection of positivism provides convenient distinction which applies as much to the investigation of teacher knowledge as to the knowledge itself”.

Also, Freeman (1995:581) calls for a constructive approach when researching teachers’ practice. He states that “it is imperative to examine how participants - teachers, students, parents, and others involved in schools and classrooms - construe their worlds, the actions they take, and how they explain those actions to themselves and to others.” Likewise, Golombek (1998:447) believes that the teacher knowledge base should not be compulsory and argued that “L2 teachers' knowledge is, in part, experiential and constructed by teachers themselves as they respond to the contexts of their classrooms.”

The arguments for constructivism stress the role of experience and context. Therefore, a practical epistemology could shed light on the connection between knowledge and action and how it is researched. Understanding the role of knowledge in teaching could be enhanced through Dewey’s transactional theory of knowing, which is seen as one of the strongest and most complex epistemologies of practice available (Biesta, 2007). This theory states that the basic phenomenon is the co-ordinated transaction of organism-environment or act. Accordingly, the idea of knowledge is viewed from an action-theoretical perspective, whereby knowing relates to doing. The notion of knowing does not relate to a reality “out there” but revolves around the link between actions and their consequences. Therefore, planning actions rather than using trial and error seems like a better strategy, which is a critical skill for a practitioner who is unsure about how to behave or act. This could be true of teaching as the teachers are often faced with novel situations.

According to Dewey’s transactional theory of knowing, a practitioner does not have any knowledge at all to act. This does not mean that practitioners do not learn from their interactions and actions within their realities. The whole idea of experience is that one undergoes the consequences of doings and changes as a result of this. This change conditions further behaviour by acquiring habits or predispositions to act. The essence of habits is an acquired predisposition to ways or modes of response, not to particular acts. Reflection with the use of

106

symbolic operations makes the difference between trial and error and intelligent action (Biesta, 2007). .

Problem definition is key to intelligent action and development of new habits. When a practitioner is faced with an indeterminate situation, a suitable response is needed to maintain coordinated transaction which was interrupted by the new situation. Defining the problem is essential to find the appropriate response. According to Dewey, finding the solution and finding the problem are two sides of the same coin because a practitioner will only know what the problem was after finding an adequate response. The best way to find the appropriate response is through the imagination of different competing possible courses of action. The success of the selected choice will be apparent upon acting.

Reflection on action is central to these processes. Problems cannot simply be resolved through mere contemplation. However, to reach a reasonable response, the thought process provides a better chance of success than trial and error approach. Knowledge is gained through problem-solving exercises and is informed indirectly, or directly, by similarities and differences with other settings and could contribute to addressing future problems. Thus, gained knowledge is not about the world, but about the relations between action and its consequences in a specific situation. This viewpoint could contribute to research of teachers’ experience and knowledge. Biesta (2007:15) claims that “One of the main implications of this view is that inquiry or research, does not provide us with information about a world out there, but only about possible relations between actions and consequences.” This type of research could tell us in the investigated context, or similar contexts, what worked, but could not inform us, at least directly, about what could not have worked or what will work.