Skip to main content

DEVELOPING UNDERSTANDING OF INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES OF TEACHING SCIENCE THROUGH ACTION RESEARCH: A QUALITATIVE META-SYNTHESIS FROM PAKISTAN

ABSTRACT

This study is a meta-synthesis of 20 action research studies undertaken in the classroom by teachers to develop their understanding of an innovative strategy for teaching science. The studies were undertaken as part of the requirements for their 2-year M.Ed. program from the Aga Khan University, Institute for Educational Development (AKU-IED), Pakistan. The teachers enrolled in the program are expected to conduct a small-scale study as part of their thesis requirement which counts for 16 credits or 25% of the program. Twenty studies from a total of 350 M.Ed. thesis were selected based on specific criteria that they (a) are qualitative action research studies, (b) are undertaken by teachers who themselves teach in the science classroom, and (c) use an innovative strategy for teaching science. The meta-synthesis shows that action research contributed to developing understanding in all three domains of teacher knowledge: pedagogical knowledge, subject matter knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge. The teacher researchers developed an understanding of the theory and practice of the innovative strategy implemented and found that the transformation of their science content knowledge to “fit” the new ways of teaching was the most challenging and rewarding part of their research. They also found that the balance between innovative ways of teaching science and current methods of assessment was very hard to achieve and created a barrier to the acceptance of new methods of teaching.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Aga Khan University, Institute for Educational Development (2009). Dissertation guide for M.Ed. class of 2010. Karachi: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Aga Khan University, Institute for Educational Development website http://www.aku.edu/IED/

  3. Airasian, P. W. & Walsh, M. E. (1997). Constructivist cautions. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(6), 449.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Anderson, T. (2002). Reform in science teaching: What research says about inquiry? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Anjum, S. (2005). Implementing the process of science concept development in early childhood education through young children’s learning of living and nonliving things: An action research. Unpublished master’s thesis, Aga Khan University, Institute for Educational Development, Pakistan.

  6. Anwar, P. H. (2007). Promoting discussion in a lower secondary science classroom. Unpublished master’s thesis, Aga Khan University, Institute for Educational Development, Pakistan.

  7. Ashraf, H. & Rarieya, J. (2008). Teacher development through reflective conversations—possibilities and tensions: A Pakistan case. Reflective Practice, 9(3), 269–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Azim, S. (2006). Authentic assessment: An approach to enhance and assess students’ learning. Unpublished master’s thesis, Aga Khan University, Institute for Educational Development, Pakistan.

  10. Bair, C. R. (1999). Meta-synthesis. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE), San Antonio, Texas.

  11. Barroso, J. & Powell-Cope, G. M. (2000). Metasynthesis of qualitative research on living with HIV infection. Qualitative Health Research, 10(3), 340–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chang, G. A. (2007). Innovative strategies to promote students’ argumentation in science. Unpublished master’s thesis, Aga Khan University, Institute for Educational Development, Pakistan.

  13. Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students’ responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1315–1346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cohen, D. K. & Barnes, C. A. (1993). Conclusion: A new pedagogy for policy? In D. K. Cohen, M. W. McLaughlin & J. E. Talbert (Eds.), Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Costu, B., Ayas, A. & Naiz, M. (2010). Promoting conceptual changes in first year students’ understanding of evaporation. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 11, 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dhindsa, S. H. & Anderson, R. O. (2004). Using a conceptual-change approach to help preservice science teachers reorganize their knowledge structures for constructivist teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(1), 63–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Duschl, R. A. & Gitomer, D. H. (1997). Strategies and challenges to changing the focus of assessment and instruction in science classrooms. Educational Assessment, 4(1), 37–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Elliot, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Goldston, J. M. & Shroyer, G. M. (2000). Teachers as researchers: Promoting effective science and mathematics teaching. Teaching and Change, 7(4), 327–346.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Goodnough, K. (2001). Enhancing professional knowledge: A case study of an elementary teacher. Canadian Journal of Education, 26(2), 218–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Goodnough, K. (2008). Moving science off the “back burner”: Meaning making within an action community of practice. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(1), 15–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Education (GOP-MOE) (2006). Pakistan education statistics 2005–2006. Retrieved on March 15, 2011 from http://www.moe.gov.pk/Pakistan%20Education%20Statistics-2005-2006T1.pdf

  23. Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Education (GOP-MOE), Islamabad (2009a). National professional standards for teachers in Pakistan. Retrieved on October 10, 2009 from http://www.teachereducation.net.pk/files/National%20Professional%20Standards%20for%20Teachers.pdf

  24. Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Education (GOP-MOE), Islamabad (2009b). National education policy 2009. Retrieved on October 10, 2009 from http://www.moe.gov.pk/

  25. Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Education (GOP-MOE) Islamabad (2009c). National standards for accreditation of teacher education programs. Retrieved March 15, 2011 from http://www.teachereducation.net.pk/files/National%20Professional%20Standards%20for%20Teachers-urdu.pdf

  26. Halai, N. (2006a). Reconceptualising the professional development of inservice science teachers in Pakistan. In J. Earnest, & D. Treagust (Eds.). Education rebuilding in societies in transition: International perspectives (pp. 163–176). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publications.

  27. Halai, N. (2006b). Learning to use innovative pedagogy: The experience of a primary science teacher. Science Education International, 17(2), 123–132.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hasnain, U. F. (2007). Developing understanding of a writing frame for explanation in science writing. Unpublished M.Ed. thesis, Aga Khan University, Institute for Educational Development, Pakistan.

  29. Hoodbhoy, P. (2008). Education and the state: Fifty years of Pakistan. Karachi: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Imomnazarovna, E. S. (2005). Implementation of teaching based on multiple intelligences in the primary science classroom: action research. Unpublished master’s thesis, Aga Khan University, Institute for Educational Development, Pakistan.

  31. Institute for Educational Development (IED). (1994). Some notes on The Institute for Educational Development (IED) and its future development. Karachi, Pakistan: Author

  32. Iqbal, J. (2009). Feasibility of inquiry-based teaching in a lower secondary class (grade VII) of a government school in Karachi. Unpublished master’s thesis, Aga Khan University, Institute for Educational Development, Pakistan.

  33. Jaworski, B. (1996). The implications of theory for a new masters programme for teacher educators in Pakistan. Oxford Studies in Comparative Education, 6, 65–76.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Jenkins, E. W. (2000). Constructivism in school science education: Powerful model or the most dangerous intellectual tendency? Science and Education, 9, 599–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Jessani, I. S. (2007). Integration of science, technology and society (STS) approach in teaching chemistry at higher secondary level. Unpublished master’s thesis, Aga Khan University, Institute for Educational Development, Pakistan.

  36. Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (2009). Energizing learning: The instructional power of conflict. Educational Researcher, 38(1), 37–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kanjee, K. A. (1999). A constructivist approach to the teaching and learning of science. Unpublished master’s thesis, Aga Khan University, Institute for Educational Development, Pakistan.

  38. Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 567–605). Beverley Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R. & Retallick, J. (2004). The action research planner (2nd ed.). Pakistan: Aga Khan University, Institute for Educational Development.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Khamis, A. & Sammons, P. (2007). Investigating educational change: the Aga Khan University Institute for Educational Development teacher education for school improvement model. International Journal of Educational Development, 27(5), 572–580.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Khan, A. M. (2009). Understanding how the inquiry strategy works in a physics classroom at secondary level in a Pakistani private school context. Unpublished master’s thesis, Aga Khan University, Institute for Educational Development, Pakistan.

  42. Khanam, N. (2002). Use of observation skills as a teaching/learning strategy in primary science classroom. Unpublished master’s thesis, Aga Khan University, Institute for Educational Development, Pakistan.

  43. Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2, 34–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Liem, L. T. (1987). Invitation to science inquiry (2nd ed.). Chino Hills: Science Inquiry Enterprises.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Longfield, J. (2009). Discrepant teaching events: Using an inquiry stance to address students’ misconceptions. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21(2), 266–271.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J. & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Martin, M. A. & Hand, B. (2009). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom. A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 39(1), 17–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Meher, R. (1995). Exploring concept mapping as an approach to science teaching in lower secondary school in Pakistan. Unpublished master’s thesis, Aga Khan University, Institute for Educational Development, Pakistan.

  49. Mehrunisa, (2000). The enhancement of primary students’ participation in science through teacher’s questioning. Unpublished master’s thesis, Aga Khan University, Institute for Educational Development, Pakistan.

  50. Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J. & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction—what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984–2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Mir, K. (2008). Implementing ‘assessment as learning’ to develop students’ conceptual understanding in a secondary school chemistry classroom of a government school in Karachi. Unpublished master’s thesis, Aga Khan University, Institute for Educational Development, Pakistan.

  52. Muhammad, S. (1998). The use of discrepant events as an alternative science teaching strategy in lower secondary classrooms. Unpublished master’s thesis, Aga Khan University, Institute for Educational Development, Pakistan.

  53. Mustafa, S. (1998). Discrepancy: an innovative strategy for promoting studies’ learning in science. Unpublished master’s thesis, Aga Khan University, Institute for Educational Development, Pakistan.

  54. Muzaffar, S. (1999). Students’ questioning in a primary science classroom. Unpublished master’s thesis, Aga Khan University, Institute for Educational Development, Pakistan.

  55. Najam, A. (2008). Educational apartheid. Chowk: Ideas, identities and interactions. Retrieved on March 18, 2011 from http://www.chowk.com/Views/Education/Educational-Apartheid.

  56. Pardhan, H. & Mohammad, R. F. (2005). Teaching science and mathematics for conceptual understanding? A rising issue. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 1(1), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Pedretti, E. & Hodson, D. (1995). From rhetoric to action: Implementing STS education through action research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(5), 463–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Ponte, P., Beijard, D. & Ax, J. (2004). Don’t wait till the cow come home: Action research and initial teacher education in three different countries. Teacher and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 10(6), 591–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Prawat, R. S. (1989). Teaching for understanding: Three key attributes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 5, 315–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Robinson, M. (2009). Practitioner inquiry in South Africa schools: What, how and why (not). Educational Action Research, 17(1), 121–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Rutherford, F. J. & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Siraj, S. (2002). Inquiry-based science teaching: an action research study. Unpublished master’s thesis, Aga Khan University, Institute for Educational Development, Pakistan.

  65. Smerdon, B. A., Burkam, D. T. & Lee, V. E. (1999). Access to constructivist and didactic teaching: Who gets it? Where is it practiced? Teachers College Record, 1001(1), 5–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Social Policy Development Centre (SPDC) (2003). The state of science education (chapter 6). In Social Development in Pakistan 2002–2003: The State of Education in Pakistan. http://www.spdc.org.pk/Publications.aspx

  67. Somekh, B. (2005). Action research: A methodology for change and development. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1999). Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Suri, S. (2007). Active reading strategy (DART) to facilitate students’ understanding of science concepts in a secondary science classroom of a community-based school in Karachi, Pakistan. Unpublished master’s thesis, Aga Khan University, Institute for Educational Development, Pakistan.

  70. Tiberghien, A., Jossem, E. & Barojas, J. (1998). Connecting research in physics education with teacher education. I.C.P.E Book, International Commission on Physics Education.

  71. UNESCO (2006). Situation analysis of teacher education: Towards a strategic framework for teacher education and professional development in Pakistan. Paris: UNESCO and USAID.

    Google Scholar 

  72. White, R. & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Zehra, E. (2000). Organizing group work in primary science classrooms. Unpublished master’s thesis, Aga Khan University, Institute for Educational Development, Pakistan.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to NELOFER HALAI.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

HALAI, N. DEVELOPING UNDERSTANDING OF INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES OF TEACHING SCIENCE THROUGH ACTION RESEARCH: A QUALITATIVE META-SYNTHESIS FROM PAKISTAN. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 10, 387–415 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-011-9313-0

Download citation

KEY WORDS

  • action research
  • professional development
  • qualitative meta-synthesis
  • reflective practice
  • science education
  • science teaching
  • teacher as researcher
  • teaching strategies