Advertisement

DIFFERENT TYPES OF ACTION RESEARCH TO PROMOTE CHEMISTRY TEACHERS’ PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT—A JOINED THEORETICAL REFLECTION ON TWO CASES FROM ISRAEL AND GERMANY

  • Rachel Mamlok-NaamanEmail author
  • Ingo Eilks
Article

ABSTRACT

Action research is defined as using research activities to develop concrete societal practices. Action research understands the change of practice as being already a central aim of the research process itself, and it also seeks to contribute to the professional development of all participants in the particular field of study. Even though (or maybe even because) action research has a long history in the literature, there is a wide variety of interpretations of it. These range all the way from research supportive, via interactive, to emancipatory approaches. There is also a broad range of objectives covering both improving professional environments and generating results of general interest. This paper explores the spectrum of justifications given for action research with a specific focus on science education. Two completely different examples of action research selected from Israel and Germany help illustrate the diversity of the topic. The Israeli case focuses primarily on the professional development of a group of teachers; the German example hones in on the development of suitable curricula and lesson plans for wide dissemination. Comparison of these two projects is embedded in a theoretical framework which categorizes the different action research modes and contemplates teachers’ professional development. The aim of this paper is to reflect upon the common potential inherent in differing forms of action research on science education, including the aspect of professional development among teachers.

KEY WORDS

action research network of teachers pedagogical content knowledge professional development of teachers reflective teachers 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Altrichter, H. & Gstettner, P. (1993). Action research: A closed chapter in the history of German school science. Educational Action Research, 1, 325–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Appleton, K., & Kindt, T. (1999). How do beginning elementary teachers cope with science. Development of pedagogical content knowledge in science. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Education, Boston.Google Scholar
  3. Beijaard, D. & Verloop, N. (1996). Assessing teachers’ practical knowledge. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 22, 275–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bencze, L. & Hodson, D. (1999). Changing practice by changing practice: Toward more authentic science and science curriculum development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 521–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  6. Clarke, D. & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 947–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dass, P., Hofstein, A., Mamlok, R., Dawkins, K. & Pennick, J. (2008). Action research as professional development of science teachers. In I. V. Erickson (Ed.), Science education in the 21st century (pp. 205–240). Hauppauge, NY: Nova.Google Scholar
  8. De Jong, O. (2000). Crossing the borders: Chemical education research and teaching practice. University Chemistry Education, 4(1), 29–32.Google Scholar
  9. De Jong, O., Van Driel, J. H. & Verloop, N. (2005). Preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of using particle models in teaching chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 947–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dickson, G. & Green, K. L. (2001). The external researcher in participatory action research. Educational Action Research, 9, 243–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dresner, M. & Worley, E. (2006). Teacher research experiences, partnerships with scientists, and teacher networks sustaining factors from professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eilks, I. (2003). Co-operative curriculum development in a project of participatory action research within chemical education: Teachers’ reflections. Science Education International, 14(4), 41–49.Google Scholar
  13. Eilks, I. (2005a). Experiences and reflections about teaching atomic structure in a jigsaw classroom in lower secondary school chemistry lessons. Journal of Chemical Education, 82, 313–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eilks, I. (Ed.). (2005b). Chemie interaktiv (Lehrwerksreihe für mittlere Schulformen). Berlin, Germany: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
  15. Eilks, I., & Markic, S. (2011). Effects of a long-term participatory action research project on science teachers’ professional development. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 7(3), 149–160.Google Scholar
  16. Eilks, I., Markic, S. & Witteck, T. (2010). Collaborative innovation of the science classroom by participatory action research—theory and practice in a project of implementing cooperative learning methods in chemistry education. In M. Valenčič Zuljan & J. Vogrinc (Eds.), With the teacher’s innovation and research to student’s quality knowledge. Ljubljana, Slovenia: University of Ljubljana.Google Scholar
  17. Eilks, I., Möllering, J. & Valanides, N. (2007). Seventh-grade students’ understanding of chemical reactions—reflections from an action research interview study. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 4(3), 271–286.Google Scholar
  18. Eilks, I. & Ralle, B. (2002). Participatory action research in chemical education. In B. Ralle & I. Eilks (Eds.), Research in chemical education—what does this mean? (pp. 87–98). Aachen, Germany: Shaker.Google Scholar
  19. Eilks, I., Ralle, B., Markic, S., Pilot, A. & Valanides, N. (2006). Ways towards research-based science teacher education. In I. Eilks & B. Ralle (Eds.), Towards research-based science teacher education (pp. 179–184). Aachen, Germany: Shaker.Google Scholar
  20. Feldman, A. (1996). Enhancing the practice of physics teachers: Mechanisms for the generation and sharing of knowledge and understanding in collaborative action research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 513–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Feldman, A. & Minstrel, J. (2000). Action research as a research methodology for study of teaching and learning science. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 429–455). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Gilbert, J. K. & Newberry, M. (2004). The cams hill science consortium: An institutional collaborative action research project. In B. Ralle & I. Eilks (Eds.), Quality in practice-oriented research in science education (pp. 53–62). Aachen, Germany: Shaker.Google Scholar
  23. Gipe, J. P. & Richards, J. (1992). Reflective thinking and growth novices’ teaching abilities. The Journal of Educational Research, 86, 52–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Hawhorne, NY: Aldine.Google Scholar
  25. Gore, J. & Zeichner, K. (1991). Action research and reflective teaching in preservice teacher education: A case study from the United States. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  27. Grundy, S. (1982). Three modes of action research. Curriculum Perspectives, 2(3), 23–34.Google Scholar
  28. Haney, J. J., Czerniak, C. M. & Lumpe, A. T. (1996). Teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the implementation of science education reform strands. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 971–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harrison, J. & Globman, R. (1988). Assessment of training teachers in active learning: A research report. Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar-Ilan University (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  30. Hofstein, A. (2001). Action research: Involving classroom-related studies and professional development studies. In Paper for IOSTE conference, April 29–May 2. Paralimni, Cyprus.Google Scholar
  31. Hofstein, A., Carmi, M. & Ben-Zvi, R. (2003). The development of leadership among chemistry teachers in Israel. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1, 39–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Holly, P. (1991). Action research: The missing linking the creation of schools as centers of inquiry. In A. Liberman & L. Millaer (Eds.), Staff development for education in the 90’s: New demands, new realities, new perspectives (pp. 133–157). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  33. Huberman, M. (1993). Linking the practitioner and researcher communities for school improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvements, 4, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (1983). Powers in stuff development through research on training. Ch. 3—attacking the transfer problem. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  35. Kemmis, S. (1993). Action research and social movement: A challenge for policy research. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 1. Retrieved from the World Wide Web February 1, 2009 at epaa.asu.edu/epaa/abs1.html
  36. Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner. Geelong, VIC, Australia: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Korthagen, F. A. J. (1985). Reflective teaching and preservice teacher education in the Netherlands. Journal of Teacher Education, 36(5), 11–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lawrenz, F. (2001). Evaluation of teacher leader professional development. In C. R. Nesbit, J. D. Wallace, D. K. Pugalee, A. Country-Miller & W. J. DiBiase (Eds.), Developing teacher leaders. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearing House.Google Scholar
  39. Lederman, N. G., Gess-Newsome, J. & Latz, M. S. (1994). The nature and development of preservice science teachers’ conceptions of subject matter and pedagogy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 129–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2, 34–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N. & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  42. Loucks-Horsley, S. & Matsumoto, C. (1999). Research on professional development for teachers of mathematics and science: The state of the scene. School Science and Mathematics, 99, 258–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Loughran, J. J. (2007). Science teacher as learner. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1043–1066). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  44. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J. & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, source, and development of pedagogical content knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  45. Mamlok-Naaman, R., Navon, O., Carmeli, M. & Hofstein, A. (2005). Chemistry teachers research their own work two case studies. In K. M. Boersma, O. De Jong & H. Eijkelhof (Eds.), Research and the quality of science education (pp. 141–156). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mamlok-Naaman, R., Navon, O., Carmeli, R. & Hofstein, A. (2003). Teachers research their students’ understanding of electrical conductivity. Australian Journal of Education in Chemistry, 62, 13–20.Google Scholar
  47. Mamlok-Naaman, R., Navon, O., Carmeli, R. & Hofstein, A. (2004). A follow-up study of an action research workshop. In B. Ralle & I. Eilks (Eds.), Quality in practice-oriented research in science education (pp. 63–72). Aachen, Germany: Shaker.Google Scholar
  48. Marks, R., Bertram, S. & Eilks, I. (2008). Learning chemistry and beyond with a lesson plan on “potato crisps”, which follows a socio-critical and problem-oriented approach to Chemistry lessons—a case study. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9(3), 267–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Masters, J. (1995). The history of action research. In I. Hughes (Ed.), Action research electronic reader. Sidney, NSW, Australia: The University of Sidney. Retrieved from the World Wide Web, May 1, 2009 at www.docstoc.com/docs/2187576/THE-HISTORY-OF-ACTION-RESEARCH.
  50. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1. Retrieved from the World Wide Web, February 01, 2009 at www.qualitative-research.net/fqs.
  51. McIntyre, D. (2005). Bridging the gap between research and practice. Cambridge Journal of Education, 35, 357–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Moser, H. (1975). Aktionsforschung als kritische Theorie der Sozialwissenschaften. München, Germany: Kösel.Google Scholar
  53. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  54. Noffke, S. (1994). Action research: Towards the next generation. Educational Action Research, 2, 9–21.Google Scholar
  55. O’Hanlon, C. (1996). Professional development through action research in educational settings. Washington, DC: Falmer.Google Scholar
  56. Obaya, O. (2003). Action research: Creating a context for science teaching and learning. Science Education International, 14(1), 37–47.Google Scholar
  57. Parke, H. M. & Coble, C. R. (1997). Teachers designing curriculum as professional development: A model for transformational science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 773–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Putnam, R. T. & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29, 4–15.Google Scholar
  59. Richardson, V. & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 905–947). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  60. Riquarts, K. & Hansen, K. H. (1998). Collaboration among teachers, researchers and in-service trainers to develop an integrated science curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 30, 661–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Roth, K. J. (2007). Science teachers as researchers. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1203–1260). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  62. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  63. Scott, P. H. & Driver, R. H. (1998). Learning about science teaching: perspectives from an action research project. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 67–80). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  64. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.Google Scholar
  65. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.Google Scholar
  66. Smith, D. C. & Neale, D. C. (1989). The construction of subject matter knowledge in primary science teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 5, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sprinthall, N. A., Reiman, A. J. & Thies-Sprinthall, L. (1996). Teacher professional development. In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  68. Staub, F. C., West, L. & Bickel, D. D. (2003). What is content-focused coaching? In L. West & F. C. Staub (Eds.), Content-focused coaching. Transforming mathematics lessons (pp. 1–17). Portsmouth, UK: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  69. Tobin, K. G. & Dawson, G. (1992). Constraints to curriculum reform: Teachers and the myths of schooling. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40, 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tobin, K., Tippins, D. J. & Gallard, A. J. (1994). Research on instructional strategies for science teaching. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 45–93). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  71. Towns, M. H., Kreke, K. & Fields, A. (2000). An action research project: Student perspectives on small-group learning in chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 77, 111–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Van Driel, J. H. & Justi, R. (2006). The use of the interconnected model of teacher professional growth for understanding the development of science teachers’ knowledge on models and modelling. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 437–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N. & De Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 673–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wadsworth, Y. (1998). What is participatory action research? Action Research International (Paper 2). Retrieved from the World Wide Web, February 01, 2009 at www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/ari/arihome.html.
  75. Whyte, W. F., Greenwood, D. J. & Lazes, P. (1989). Participatory action research. The American Behavioral Scientist, 32, 513–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1996). New directions in action research. London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  77. Zwart, R. C., Wubbels, T., Bergen, T. C. M. & Bollhuis, S. (2007). Experienced teacher learning within the context of reciprocal peer coaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 13, 165–187.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Science TeachingThe Weizmann Institute of ScienceRehovotIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Biology and Chemistry, Institute for Science EducationUniversity of BremenBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations