 in which practical activity may not always be necessary, providing a useful example of a context for learning which "engages the intellect . . and fires the imagination" (Millar and Driver, 1987, p56).
The use of concept cartoons is consistent with the model of generative science teaching put forward by Wittrock (1994), in which he notes the significance of the learner's attention in promoting learning. They appear to provide a powerful stimulus to learners to focus their attention on constructing meaningful explanations for the situations described in the drawings. In this way they promote the active engagement of the learner, which is a vital part of the learning process (Millar and Driver, 1987; Somekh and Davies, 1991). The element of cognitive conflict built into the concept cartoons provides an important parallel with the more typical use of cartoons for humour (Larson 1989) and appears to have an impact on motivation. The effect of the use of the concept cartoons on the motivation of learners must be one of the most important factors in evaluating their use in the classroom. Woolnough (1994) notes that
if students are motivated and if they are given the freedom and the opportunity, they will find ways of learning. If they are not, they will not bother (page 111).
The focus of this research has been on the value of concept cartoons as a teaching and learning approach in science. We have been conscious in the research of the need to ensure that teachers have been fully involved, not only in the evaluation of the cartoons but also in constructing the evaluation criteria. Much of the evaluation has been unrestricted, with teachers making their own decisions about how they chose to evaluate the use of the concept cartoons. In every case the extent to which the concept cartoons have had a positive impact in the classroom has been a central feature of the evaluation process.
One unanticipated outcome of the research has been the impact on our own practice. The use of the concept cartoons with our own teaching groups has encouraged us to reflect on our own practice and has led to significant developments in our practice and in our understanding of how best to implement a constructivist approach in the classroom. Areas where our practice has changed significantly have included the purpose of elicitation, the link between elicitation and restructuring and how the learners' ideas can be taken into account.
We recognise that our views about constructivist principles and practice may be based on a misunderstanding of some aspects of the relevant literature. However we have first-hand evidence that our views about the difficulty of putting constructivist ideas into practice are shared by many teachers. If we have misunderstood the implications of the literature then we suspect that many teachers share our misunderstanding, and we would see it as a priority for research groups to attempt to minimise any possible misunderstandings of the implications of their work. It is encouraging Nuffield Primary Science, which is based firmly on the SPACE Research Project, has recognised the importance of the issues that we have raised and has begun to address them in its most recent publication (Nuffield 1996), pointing out the distinction between research and teaching. We hope that our research will help to promote further development of constructivist frameworks in the future.
Bentley, D. and Watts, M. (1991) Constructivism in the curriculum. Can we close the gap between the strong theoretical version and the weak version of theory in practice? The Curriculum Journal, 2, 2, 171-182.
Carr, W. and Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming critical: knowing through action research. Victoria, Deakin University.
Claxton, G. (1986) The alternative conceivers' conceptions. Studies in Science Education, 13, 123-130
Day, C. (1995) Qualitative research, professional development and the role of teacher educators: fitness for purpose. British Educational Research Journal, 21, 3, 357-369.
Denzin, N.K. (1970) The research act in sociology: a theoretical introduction 