Jennifer Weide ER7530A Research article: “Who Team Teaches, Really?” Building Successful High School Team Teaching Action Research Article Analysis 1. The methodology in this action research study was a quantitative research design using a non-cognitive survey to obtain the research results. According to McMillian (2016), non-cognitive measures, such as surveys and questionnaires, are used to collect attitudes, value, and beliefs (p. 404). This research method is consistent with the research question about curriculum teams being the best service delivery model at their high school (Thompson & Callaway, 2003). This was done by gathering data about teachers' opinions on successful team teaching at East High and how to support and implement more team teaching at this school. Both descriptive summary and interpretation of the data using graphs were used in reporting the data. Multiple data collection methods were not used; all data were collected using surveys. However, the data was divided into three different groups of participants: teachers currently team teaching, those that had team-teaching experience, and those with no team experience (Thompson & Callaway, 2003). 2. Two important types of validaity that this study demonstrates is catalytic and dialogic validity. Catalytic validity pertains to how well the study inspires researchers and other educators affected by the study to change their practices and those within their school system (McMillian, 2016, p. 408). The researchers of this study state that they have opened up discussions on this issue, have developed pamphlets for their school as guidelines for curriculum teams, and have new ideas on how to improve their own practice as team teachers (Thompson & Callaway, 2003). According to McMillian (2016), dialogic validity refers to how well the research has encouraged conversations and learning among other educators (p. 408). This study opened up discussions about curriculum teams and ultimately led to a pilot program at their school that involves general education teachers and special education teachers (Thompson & Callaway, 2003). The researchers demonstrate dialogic validity by holding meetings for those interested and continuing the education needed for teachers that would be a part of the pilot program. 3. This study demonstrates the cyclical process that is central to action research studies. In this particular study, the research portion of the cyclical process of action research is identified as the first step in the cycle. It includes the planning and collection of data. The researchers of this study continue to address the purpose of their action plan by reporting the results of their research. Thompson & Callaway (2003) state that a pamphlet will be distributed among staff as the action portion of their research project. Among other research questions that arose from the study is how to equitably distribute teachers and students in curriculum team classrooms (Thompson & Callaway, 2003). Finally, the researchers discuss the reflection portion of the cycle by exploring the possibility of implementing curriculum teams as a model for classroom instruction. 4. External feedback is demonstrated in the study when the researchers begin to discuss the idea of curriculum teams and the results of the study with other teachers. Through these discussions, and by connecting to other teachers who have participated in curriculum teams before, the researchers developed a pilot project for curriculum teams for the following school year (Thompson & Callaway, 2003). References McMillan, J. H. (2016). Fundamentals of Educational Research. Pearson. Thompson, C., & Callaway, W. (2003). "Who Team Teaches, Really?" Building Successful High School Team Teaching. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.467.4686&rep=rep1&type=pdf
