Writing it down—writing it out—writing it up: researching our practice through action learning

We dedicate this article to the late Professor John Morris, an appreciative inquirer into and true enabler of the writing of practice for each of us.

What value is added for writer and reader by intentionally keeping personal learning part of public researching? When a practitioner attends conscientiously to ‘the relationship with their research,’ does it make a difference to their learning and researching? If it does, can this difference also make a difference to the reader …? This paper addresses these kinds of queries from the standpoint of ‘scholarly practice,’ the research undertaken by mature managers and professionals who account in text for initiating and sustaining change within their complex contexts of work. Through exploring a variety of learning frames, the authors identify the distinctive opportunities and challenges in practice-led enquiry, and raise implications critically for the researching professional as well as for their ‘enablers’—the academic supervisors or fellow action-learning set members—who support and challenge the efforts of scholarly practitioners to make sense of and explicate their action. Revans's praxeology of action-based learning (systems alpha, beta and gamma) is extended as a research analogue for practice-led knowing. Ontological, methodological and epistemological perspectives are progressively deployed to examine critically the essentially reflexive nature of scholarly practice. The authors depict challenges in scholarly practice of establishing focus, incorporating others' thinking alongside one's own and asserting one's own voice. The paper concludes by warning of two ways in which enablers can unwittingly hijack the purpose of practice-led research.     

Promoting perseverance and challenge in physical education: the missing ingredient for improved games teaching

This paper explores critical notions about how improved understandings of students learning experiences within practical learning environments could sensitise teachers to appreciate the complex influences more that affect how levels of challenge and perseverance are constructed by students. The authors, in furthering their critique, build on the model of constructivism developed by Ollis and Sproule. This model attempted in embryonic terms to recognise the specific situational factors that most influenced the minded ways in which students identified and responded to learning challenges. In refining these ideas further the authors specifically consider how teaching games for understanding (TGfU) methodologies could be enhanced by recognising the meta-cognitions of students when constructing rich task led learning episodes. In conclusion, it is posited that comprehending the complexity of learning theory holds considerable promise for the ongoing development of physical education as a valuable and integral part of the school learning experience.