Research in Secondary Science Education:
SED 600: Spring 2007: March 13, 2007
John Olson
Action Research Presentations
Each of the presentations observed during class helped to clarify the process and content of an
action research project. Hearing the presentations and the findings, as well as the methods the
different speakers used, made it evident that each study has its own unique focus, but they all
follow the same general set of guidelines.
It was interesting to observe that although the studies presented were thorough and well done,
none of them were unnecessarily complicated. “An action research study does not have to be
complicated or elaborate to be vigorous or effective” (Johnson, 2008, 29). Thomas Schuster’s
project looked at a large amount of data in an elegantly simple manner “…the Use of
Objectives Lists” (Schuster, 2006), where much of the data recording was done directly by the
students through their self evaluation check-off sheets. Johnson points out early on in his text
that “a well organized, concisely described study is always preferable to a confusing,
complicated study” (Johnson, 2008, 30). Schuster’s objectives list form was a creative way to
help students to focus on their own learning behaviors, and his freedom within the study to
create and evaluate this form was intriguing. “Empowered teachers are able to bring their
talents, experiences, and creative ideas into the classroom” (Johnson, 2008, 33). The proposal
I am considering will take a lot of creative thought to produce a study of any value, and I am
encouraged to see that one of the top presentations from the first cohort had created his study
from an idea he developed.
“In action research, triangulation is achieved by collecting different types of data, using
different data sources, collecting data at different times, and by having other people review
your data to check for accuracy and adjust your findings” (Johnson, 2008, 102). The way in
which Schuster triangulated his data provided insight into his students. The use of hard data
(test scores) was balanced with information about the learners from their objectives lists,
“Student Reported Effort and Student Reported Honesty,” (Schuster 2006) which gave insight
not only into the students’ abilities, but also how they viewed their abilities and achievements.
This information from two viewpoints underscores the need for triangulated data. Schuster’s
data sketched a portrait of student performance, balanced with how honest they were with
themselves, and how good they felt about their knowledge of the material that was presented.
Schuster did not go overboard with his predictions of the value of this predictive form as a tool
for learning, but did demonstrate that it gave a clear picture of the self-awareness many of the
students had of their own learning and knowledge.
One of the tenets presented by Johnson was the idea that “teachers are empowered when they
are able to collect their own data to use in making decisions about their schools and
classrooms” (2008, 33). George Lyle’s study exemplified this step in his choosing to evaluate
and use online homework as a topic of study. His study used scores, a survey and field notes to
look at the overall impact of online homework compared with traditional homework (Lyle,
2008). Lyle worked with existing data sources (test scores), and did not have to re-invent a
data collection protocol.
His data demonstrated that there was not a significant difference in grades when comparing the
scores of students doing their homework online with those doing the traditional method.
“Students using Web-Based Homework did slightly better on four of six tests. Students using
Paper Based Homework did slightly better on one test . Statistical analysis showed that the
differences in performance were not significant” (Lyle, 2006). These numbers gave a
quantitative measurement to his study. “Quantitative research uses numbers to reach a state of
knowing” (Johnson, 2008, 6). Although his quantitative data did not demonstrate any
significant differences, the more qualitative aspects of his study did. Johnson pointed out that
“triangulation means looking at something from more than one perspective” (2008, 102).
Using the data collected through his survey and field notes, Lyle’s research indicated that
students seemed to prefer the online homework, that they spent more time doing their online
homework, and were more likely to seek out help from peers and from the teacher. Even
though his study did not clarify his first research question (score improvement), it did seem to
support the second question regarding preference and time on task. Lyle’s study demonstrates
to those just embarking on their own action research studies that an unexpected answer may be
just as acceptable as the expected answer, and may actually lead to further inquiry.
Jennifer Klipfel’s (2006) study “Does explicitly teaching the nature of science (NOS) inform
student views of the NOS and their understanding of science in the real world?” was interesting
in that it was a clear and simple case study of the response of her students to being made aware
of the nature of science in the process of learning science.
“Qualitative research…uses systematic observations to reach understanding (Johnson, 2008,
6). The data produced through the more qualitative portion of Klipfel’s project was the most
enlightening. Her observations of her students interacting with the research scientist did not
generate an abundance of numbers one could graph, but definitely cataloged that the students
had become engaged in their field trip and were seeing a side of the practice of science they
were previously unaware of. “The study set out to see if explicitly teaching certain aspects of
the NOS to five high school biology students would inform the students’ views of the NOS and
increase their understanding of how science functions in the real world” (Klipfel, 2006). This
is an acceptable number of subjects for a case study, but it does not really have enough subjects
or data on which to base any strong conclusions. “Caution must be exercised in coming to
generalized conclusions or in applying the results to larger populations. Such caution is
necessary because of the small sample size of most action research projects and the many
variables that are uncontrolled or unaccounted for.” (Johnson, 2008, 29).
Klipfel’s admonition to our class to stay on top of one’s timeline and keep in step with the
assignments was good to hear, as the process seems to loom larger with every new insight into
the process, and one could easily become overwhelmed.
None of the three researchers made any outrageous claims, and all seemed to be cautious with
the quality of their data collection and the conclusions drawn from that data. “The results of a
quantitative action research project are limited (Johnson, 2008, 29)” and these three presenters
seemed to follow that guideline when making their observations and conclusions. In my own
research, I will strive to keep the process simple, and exercise caution in the methods I use to
triangulate the data and interpret the findings.
References
Johnson, A.P., (2008). A Short Guide to Action Research: Third Edition. Boston, Pearson
Klipfel, J. J., (2006). Does explicitly teaching the nature of science (NOS) inform student
views of the NOS and their understanding of science in the real world? California State
University, Northridge
Lyle, G. S., (2006). The Effect of Web-based Homework on Examination Performance and
Study Habits of Secondary School AP Physics Students. Canyon High School
Canyon Country, California
Schuster, T. (2006). Student Metacognitive Learning Through the Use of Objectives Lists,
California State University, Northridge