K-12 SCIENCE CLASSROOM ACTION RESEARCH
AS EMBEDDED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
TO IMPROVE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN SCIENCE
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
The Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate
School of The Ohio State University
By
Margilee Planton Hilson, M.S.
****
The Ohio State University
2008
Dissertation Committee:
Approved by
Professor Kathy Cabe Trundle, Adviser
Professor Donna L. Farland-Smith, Co-adviser
Professor Douglas T. Owens
_________________________
Adviser
College of Education and Human Ecology
School of Teaching and Learning
Copyright by
Margilee Planton Hilson
2008
ABSTRACT
This research was an analysis of the influence of participation in a classroom
action research program upon student achievement and teacher professional
development. This research evaluated three years of data from a district wide teacher
action research program in a large urban Midwestern city. Sixty-seven teachers
involved in an action research project focused on science instruction were included in
this study. The purpose of the action research program was threefold: 1) improve
student achievement, 2) identify best instructional strategies for promoting student
achievement, and 3) recognize, replicate, and disseminate excellence in teaching.
Determination of student achievement gain was conducted through comparing the mean
difference between pre- and post project standardized assessment data relative to the
school district averages. Standardized assessments such as the Metropolitan
Achievement Test Version 8, State Department of Education created achievement tests
and District created end of course exams were administered to students annually. The
results suggest that teachers who engage in classroom action research may improve
student achievement in science as measured by standardized tests. In the 42 cases with
complete data sets, the mean student achievement gain above the district average was
3.65 Normal Curve Equivalents and an effect size of .46 was found with a 7.96 standard
deviation.
ii
Dedicated to my father, Herbert Clark Planton
and my mother, Georgean Grace Witkoski whose sacrifices and encouragement enabled
me to go to school.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to thank my husband; Jeff F. Hilson III, whose patience and encouragement
during the past six years was invaluable.
I also wish to thank my advisors Kathy Cabe Trundle, Donna L. Farland-Smith and
Douglas T. Owens for their steadfast support and wisdom.
I am grateful to Sally Hobson, Tiffany Wild, Lori Marshall, and Cindy Schroeder, who
were fellow graduate students and loyal members of “The Writing Group.”
iv
VITA
September 24, 1952 ……………………Born - Warren, Ohio, U.S.A.
1974 ……………………………………B.S. Elementary Education,
The Ohio State University
1976 ……………………………………M.S. Family Relations and Human
Development
The Ohio State University
1985 -1988 …………………………….Teacher, Overbrook Weekday Preschool
1988 -1992 …………………………….Teacher, Clintonville Academy
1992 - present ………………………….Teacher, Columbus City Schools
2005 - present ………………………… Regional Value Added Specialist,
Ohio Department of Education
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: Education
Minor Field: Research Methods in Human Resource Development
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract ............................................................................................................................ ii
Dedication ....................................................................................................................... iii
Acknowledgments............................................................................................................ iv
Vita .................................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables .................................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures ................................................................................................................ xii
Chapters:
1. Nature and Scope of the Study.................................................................................... 1
Context …. .................................................................................................................. 1
History of the Performance Advancement System ..................................................... 2
Rationale for Action Research as Professional Development in
Urban Settings ....................................................................................................... 4
Problem Statement ...................................................................................................... 5
Significance of the Study ............................................................................................ 5
Research Questions ..................................................................................................... 6
Definition of Terms..................................................................................................... 7
Limitations of the Study.............................................................................................. 8
2. Literature Review...................................................................................................... 10
Teacher as Learner .................................................................................................... 10
Theoretical Influences on Teacher as Learner .................................................... 10
Types of Teacher Knowledge ............................................................................. 13
Science Education Professional Development Models/Strategies Utilized
in Urban Settings................................................................................................. 20
Purpose of Professional Development ................................................................ 21
Standards for Effective Professional Development ............................................ 23
Classification of Professional Development ....................................................... 27
Current Research in Science Education Professional Development......................... 32
Analyses of Large Scale Multi-site Science Education Programs ...................... 32
Aligning and Implementing Curriculum ............................................................. 37
Collaborative Structure ....................................................................................... 39
vi
Examining Teaching and Learning ..................................................................... 40
Immersion Experience ........................................................................................ 42
Practicing Teaching ............................................................................................ 44
Vehicles and Mechanisms................................................................................... 45
Summary of Professional Development in Science Education........................... 53
Overview of Action Research ................................................................................... 54
Classifications of Action Research ..................................................................... 55
Unique Characteristics of Action Research ........................................................ 61
Data Collection and Analysis Methods in Action Research ............................... 63
Situating Action Research in General Research ................................................. 64
Rationale for Classroom Action Research in Science Education ....................... 67
Classroom Action Research in Science Education ................................................... 70
Science Action Research Studies Focused on Content Knowledge ................... 72
Science Action Research Studies Focused on Pedagogical Knowledge ............ 75
Science Action Research Studies Focused on Pedagogical Content
Knowledge .............................................................................................. 78
Summary of Action Research in Science Education .......................................... 86
Chapter Summary .................................................................................................... 90
3. Methodology ............................................................................................................. 91
Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 91
Participants ................................................................................................................ 92
Context ...................................................................................................................... 93
Research Design........................................................................................................ 95
Conditions of Data Collection .................................................................................. 98
Data Sources ............................................................................................................. 99
PAS Participation Records.................................................................................. 99
Student Achievement Records ............................................................................ 99
Teacher Research Summary Reports ................................................................ 101
Professional Development Records .................................................................. 101
PAS Program Documents ................................................................................. 102
National Science Education Standards ............................................................. 102
Data Analysis .......................................................................................................... 103
Quantitative ...................................................................................................... 104
Qualitative ........................................................................................................ 105
Trustworthiness ....................................................................................................... 107
Researcher Role ................................................................................................ 107
Multiple Data Sources....................................................................................... 107
Multiple Voices................................................................................................. 108
Limitations of the Study.......................................................................................... 108
Chapter Summary ................................................................................................... 110
vii
4. Results ..................................................................................................................... 111
Research Question #1: How Did Implementation of Teacher Action Research
Projects Vary Across Grade Level Bands? ...................................................... 112
Background ....................................................................................................... 112
Participation Results ......................................................................................... 113
Interpretive Findings ......................................................................................... 114
Science-Oriented Projects .................................................................... 115
Strategy-Oriented Projects .................................................................... 116
Testing-Oriented Projects ..................................................................... 117
Literacy-Oriented Projects .................................................................... 118
Research-Oriented Projects ................................................................... 118
Summary Research Question 1 ......................................................................... 119
Research Question 2: What Growth in Teaching Knowledge and Skills Do PAS
Teachers Report? .............................................................................................. 120
Background ....................................................................................................... 120
Pedagogical Knowledge.................................................................................... 121
Pedagogical Knowledge of Strategy Refinement ................................. 121
Pedagogical Knowledge of Reflective Practice .................................... 122
Pedagogical Knowledge of Assessment ............................................... 123
Pedagogical Knowledge of Parental Involvement ................................ 124
Pedagogical Content Knowledge ...................................................................... 126
Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Student Inquiry............................ 126
Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Building a Conceptual
Framework ......................................................................................... 128
Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Writing in a Content Area ........... 130
Summary Research Question 2 ......................................................................... 131
Research Question 3: Do the Instructional Practices Reported by Teachers
Reflect the National Science Education Standards? ....................................... 132
Background ....................................................................................................... 132
1.
Unifying Concepts and Processes ......................................................... 133
2.
Science as Inquiry ................................................................................ 134
3.
Physical Science.................................................................................... 135
4.
Life Science .......................................................................................... 136
5.
Earth and Space Science ....................................................................... 137
6.
Science and Technology ....................................................................... 137
7.
Science in Personal and Social Perspectives ........................................ 138
8.
History and Nature of Science .............................................................. 139
Summary Research Question 3 ......................................................................... 140
Research Question 4: Do the Instructional Practices Reported by Teachers
Reflect the Knowledge and Skills Presented in Other Professional
Development Episodes Available to the Teachers? ......................................... 140
Background ...................................................................................................... 140
Interpretive Findings ......................................................................................... 142
Summary Research Question 4 ......................................................................... 145
viii
Research Question 5: What Practical Issues Did Teachers Identify as Having
an Impact on Student Science Achievement? ................................................ 146
Background ..................................................................................................... 146
Interpretive Findings ....................................................................................... 147
Theme 1: Increasing Student Subject Knowledge ................................ 147
Theme 2: Raising Test Scores............................................................... 148
Theme 3: Constructed Response Replies .............................................. 149
Theme 4: Improving Process Skills ...................................................... 150
Theme 5: Improving Social Skills ........................................................ 151
Theme 6: Improving Literacy Skills ..................................................... 151
Summary Research Question 5 ......................................................................... 152
Research Question 6: What Instructional Practices Did Teachers Utilize
with Students to Improve Achievement on Science Assessments? .................. 152
Background ....................................................................................................... 152
Instructional Practice and Student Achievement Results ................................. 153
Interpretive Findings ......................................................................................... 155
Similarities and Differences .................................................................. 155
Summarizing and Note-Taking ............................................................. 155
Reinforcing Effort and Providing Recognition ..................................... 155
Homework and Practice ........................................................................ 156
Nonlinguistic Representation ................................................................ 156
Cooperative Learning............................................................................ 156
Setting Objectives and Providing Feedback ......................................... 157
Generating and Testing Hypotheses ..................................................... 157
Cues, Questions, and Advance Organizers ........................................... 158
Summary Research Question 6 ......................................................................... 158
Research Question 7: How Do the Student Achievement Outcomes of PAS
Teachers Vary? ................................................................................................. 158
Background ....................................................................................................... 158
Quantitative Results .......................................................................................... 159
Interpretive Findings ......................................................................................... 162
Summary Research Question 7 ......................................................................... 166
Research Question 8: How Do Program Requirements Influence
Implementation? ............................................................................................... 167
Background ....................................................................................................... 167
Interpretive Findings ......................................................................................... 168
Interaction with Students ...................................................................... 168
Diverse Student Learning Needs .................................................. 169
Curriculum Constraints ................................................................. 169
Scheduling Limitations ................................................................. 170
Poor Attendance ............................................................................ 171
Testing Issues ................................................................................ 172
Student Motivation........................................................................ 172
Eligibility for Award Stipend................................................................ 174
Summary Research Question 8 ......................................................................... 174
ix
Chapter Summary .................................................................................................... 175
5. Conclusions and Discussion ................................................................................... 177
Professional Development ...................................................................................... 177
Student Learning ............................................................................................... 178
Teacher Learning .............................................................................................. 180
Teaching Practice .............................................................................................. 185
Organizational Goals ........................................................................................ 187
Classroom Action Research .................................................................................... 189
Identifying a Problem ....................................................................................... 190
Making an Intervention Plan and Acting on It.................................................. 191
Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Plan .......................................................... 192
Personal and Prolonged Engagement................................................................ 193
Implications............................................................................................................. 195
Professional Development ................................................................................ 195
Classroom Practice............................................................................................ 198
PAS Program .................................................................................................... 201
Recommendations for Further Research ................................................................. 201
Limitations .............................................................................................................. 203
List of References ......................................................................................................... 206
Appendices:
A: Summary of Marzano et al. (2001) Research-Based Instructional Strategies as
Used by PAS Teachers...................................................................................... 218
B: PAS Research Report Writing Prompts ............................................................. 220
C: Professional Development Coding Categories................................................... 222
D: Summaries of PAS Science Action Research Projects ....................................... 225
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
2.1
Attributes of High Quality Professional Development ...................................... 25
2.2
Factors Impacting the Design of Professional Development Programs ............. 30
2.3
Situating Action Research in Inquiry Paradigms by Purpose of Research ......... 67
3.1
Overview of Research Questions, Data Sources and Analysis Procedures ...... 103
3.2
Initial Coding Fields for the Analysis of Research Summary Reports ............. 106
4.1
Enrollment and Completion Rates by School Level ......................................... 113
4.2
Projects by School Level and Focus ................................................................. 114
4.3
Professional Development Initiatives Present in 42 PAS Summary Reports ... 142
4.4
Grouped Professional Development Initiatives in 42 PAS Summary Reports . 144
4.5
Frequency and Success of Instructional Strategies Reported by Teachers on PAS
Applications ...................................................................................................... 154
4.6
Student Achievement Outcomes by School Level............................................ 161
4.7
Effect Size by School Level .............................................................................. 162
4.8
Non-completion Rates by School Level ........................................................... 174
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
2.1
Page
A Model of Teacher Knowledge......................................................................... 19
xii
CHAPTER 1
NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY
This chapter explains the historical context and rationale for this study. It also
posits the statement of the problem and the significance of the study. A listing of the
research questions, definitions of key terms, and limitations of the study end the
chapter.
Context of the Study
Compliance with Federal mandates as enumerated in the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, also known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) necessitates
that school districts provide highly qualified teachers. Research has shown that highly
knowledgeable science teachers are better able to facilitate student learning than less
qualified teachers (Hewson, Kahle, Scantlebury, & Davies, 2001; Knight & Wiseman,
2005). However, recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores
seem to indicate that many American teachers are doing a less than adequate job in
addressing science education through the National Science Education Standards
(NAEP, 2005). Urban districts have fared particularly poorly due to opportunity to learn
gaps (Loucks-Horsley, Love, Stiles, Mundry & Hewson, 2003.) As a result, policy
makers have embraced teacher professional development as a critical piece in the puzzle
1
of implementing national science education reform efforts (Beyer, Delgado, Davis &
Krajcik, 2007).
Broadly speaking, the goals of teacher professional development revolve around
teacher learning. Increasing the skills and knowledge of teachers may occur in several
areas; subject content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, or pedagogical content
knowledge (Shulman, 1987). However, identifying the specific knowledge needs of
teachers has been the subject of much debate and research because contextual factors of
teaching and learning have been treated inconsistently (Abell, 2007; Kennedy, 1991;
Loucks-Horsley, et al., 2003). Current models of teacher professional development have
had variable success in changing teacher practices to those most associated with
improved student achievement (Guskey, 2003). This may be the result of viewing
teacher development from a deficit standpoint instead of a transformative stance
(Loucks-Horsley, et al.). Information was needed about programs that empower
teachers to identify and rectify problems in both teaching practice and student
achievement within their science classrooms.
History of the Performance Advancement System
Federal legislation requires states to generate tracking systems to monitor the
progress school districts are making in meeting accountability standards. When one
large Ohio urban district fell into its state’s School Improvement category of Academic
Emergency, it was clear to all concerned that implemented district-wide instructional
policies were not meeting the needs of all students and that locally validated practices
were needed. A plan was devised to empower teachers to think like a researcher in
terms of identifying a question, hypothesizing a solution, and enacting a treatment.
2
The Performance Advancement System (PAS) was and still is the program
created in this large Ohio urban school district, which allows teachers to engage in
classroom action research. PAS has three goals: 1) improve student achievement, 2)
identify through classroom research the best instructional strategies for promoting
student achievement in the urban school district, and 3) recognize, replicate, and
disseminate excellence in teaching. Douglas Reeves, nationally recognized
accountability expert, served as facilitator for the PAS development process.
Reeves suggested a program design modeled after classroom action research.
Guidelines were written requiring participants to select a sample, a State Department of
Education accountability area, such as science, mathematics, reading or social studies,
and a research-based instructional strategy. Participants were referred to Classroom
Instruction that Works: Research-Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement
by Marzano, Pickering and Pollock (2001) to select a strategy on which to base their
action research intervention. Appendix A lists a brief description of each strategy.
Parameters were set to allow all members of the teachers’ union to participate, including
teachers, tutors, nurses, psychologists, and speech, physical, and occupational
therapists. Sources of pre- and post- project achievement test scores were identified for
data analysis to determine gain. At the end of the school year, participants were required
to write a short summary report explaining their research questions, actions taken and
the results of their actions on student achievement.
A local educational testing service was hired to review student assessment data
and calculate the achievement gains made by students. The mean class gain between
the pretest and posttest assessments for participants was compared to the district gain
3
between the same pretest and posttest assessments. Teachers whose students
demonstrated achievement results higher than the district average received a cash bonus
of $2,000.00; after 2003 the bonus was raised to $2,500.00. In school year 2001-2002,
in order to earn the cash award, teachers initially had to produce statistically significant
results determined by one standard error of measurement. This standard of achievement
proved to be too high for novice action researchers so the standard was decreased to .5
standard error. Eventually, all reference to standard error was removed and in school
years 2002-2003, and 2003-2004, teachers only had to show gain greater than the
district average gain. A plan was made to gradually increase the achievement standard
each year until it again reflected statistical significance.
Rationale for Action Research as Professional Development
Classroom action research can be considered a viable means for professional
development for several reasons. Classroom action research allows for maximum
accountability in terms of addressing variable contexts and student differences.
Teachers in urban settings face the extra challenges of high student mobility, language
barriers, generational poverty and the effects of violent crime on students. Moll (1990)
suggested that teachers should seek out and integrate into classroom practice learning
strategies uniquely situated within the cultures of their students. He termed these
cultural resources funds of knowledge. The practical and cyclical nature of classroom
action research may be one way that teachers may systematically connect to the specific
learning needs and potential of the students.
There is a high level of teacher engagement in professional development enacted
as classroom action research because the teacher initiates the research question.
4
Teachers who choose to participate in classroom action research report feelings of
empowerment and increased efficacy to help their students achieve (van Zee, Lay &
Roberts, 2003). In light of the negative view that the public media portrays urban
teachers, professional development that foregrounds teacher practical knowledge may
be viewed as a refreshing morale booster.
Problem Statement
The Performance Advancement System was instituted as a form of teacher
professional development embedded in day-to-day practice. The school district
expected that improved teacher knowledge and skills would transfer into improved
student achievement. This research is an analysis of the personal professional
development enacted by science teachers while conducting classroom action research
projects in PAS and the resultant impact on student achievement in science.
Significance of the Study
Teacher professional development typically has been evaluated in terms of
changed teacher attitudes or beliefs about teaching practice (Guskey, 2003). In addition
to appraising changes in teacher attitudes and beliefs, this study also explored
relationships between professional development as enacted through teacher classroom
action research projects and improved student science achievement. Identifying
instructional strategies employed by urban science teachers focused on school
improvement will contribute teacher practical knowledge to science education canon
(van Driel, Beijaard, & Verloop, 2001). Little actual classroom teacher action research
has been published (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993); examining teacher research records
5
will add to the knowledge base of how teachers interpreted the role of research in actual
classroom practice.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided the design of this study and the
analysis of the data:
1. How did implementation of teacher action research projects vary across grade
band levels?
2. What growth in teaching knowledge and skills do PAS teachers report?
3. Do the instructional practices reported by teachers reflect the National Science
Education Standards?
4. Do the instructional practices reported by teachers reflect the subject,
pedagogical or pedagogical content knowledge presented in other professional
development episodes attended by the teachers preceding or during the data
collection period?
5. What practical issues did teachers identify as having an impact on student
science achievement?
6. What instructional practices did teachers utilize with students to improve
achievement on state achievement tests, nationally normed assessments, or
district created end-of-course exams?
7. How do the student achievement outcomes of science teachers who participated
in PAS vary?
8. How do PAS program requirements influence teacher action research
implementation?
6
Definition of Terms
Classroom Action Research
Classroom action research is defined here to mean practitioner initiated inquiry
into a classroom practice thought to influence student achievement. The inquiry is
sustained throughout the school year and follows the cyclical model of problem
identification, solution selection, implementation, and evaluation of outcomes. Multiple
iterations of the research cycle are necessary throughout the school year informed by
student progress toward the achievement goal (Calhoun, 1994).
Improved Student Achievement
Student achievement was operationalized to mean student scores on Ohio
Achievement Tests, Metropolitan Achievement Test Version 8, or school district endof-course exams for high school students. Improvement was the measured gain in
summative test scores from prior to current school year for each student relative to the
school district mean gain (Columbus City Schools, 2007).
Professional Development
Professional development was considered to be any intentional sustained
activity in which teachers engaged for the express purpose of improving their
knowledge and skills to teach students science (Banilower, Boyd, Pasley, & Weiss,
2006).
Opportunity to Learn Gaps
Curriculum that is truncated by rigid scope and sequence timelines and bound by
transmissive teaching practices limits opportunities for developing conceptual
7
understanding. Students subject to this type of limited curriculum are said to have gaps
in their opportunity to learn science (Loucks-Horsley et al., 2003).
Limitations of the Study
This study was limited by factors inherent in the ex post facto research design.
The design is employed to study events that have already occurred and to seek linkages
between known outcomes and pre-existing conditions (Ary, Jacobs & Razavieh, 2002).
The research subjects self-selected into the program being evaluated, therefore,
outcomes may be the result of peculiarities intrinsic to the research sample. For
example, in the years immediately preceding the data collection, a major district-wide
Urban Systemic Initiative (USI) sponsored by the National Science Foundation was
enacted. Teachers who selected science in PAS very likely also voluntarily participated
in the extensive professional development offered through the USI grant. Additionally,
self-reported teacher data, in form of research summary reports, was utilized. If the
teacher reports were not accurate reflections of the classroom action research, then
conclusions drawn from them may be skewed.
Gains in student achievement were calculated utilizing student scores on
standardized achievement tests. However, summative student achievement tests varied
from grade level to grade level; consequently z-scores were utilized to compute gain.
Utilizing different achievement tests from one grade level to another highlights the issue
of comparable difficulty levels of the assessments, which was not determined.
Producing a gain between the Metropolitan Achievement Test and the State
Achievement Test may not have been as difficult as showing a gain when the pretest
and posttest assessments were both State Achievement Tests. A further limitation
8
related to achievement tests was that student performance on standardized assessments
was assumed to be a valid appraisal of classroom instruction.
Generalizability of the results of this study is limited due to the situated nature
of classroom action research (Feldman, 1994). It would be very difficult, if not
impossible to replicate the conditions present within a collection of classroom action
research projects. Successful application of research outcomes would depend upon the
match with students and teachers in other settings.
9
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this research project was to investigate the role of classroom
action research as embedded professional development for improving student
achievement in science. This literature review is organized into three sections. First, a
theoretical framework for teacher learning and types of knowledge teachers need to
know in relation to their classroom work will be examined. Next, a discussion of
professional development models utilized in science education for advancing the skills
and knowledge of teachers will be presented. Finally, the application of one form of
professional development, classroom action research, as practiced in science education
will be reviewed.
Teacher as Learner
Theoretical Influences on Teacher as Learner
Teacher learning will be considered here from the theoretical stance of
constructivism. Constructivism, as a learning theory, has been built upon developmental
theories such as Piaget’s ontogenetic theory of logical thought processes (Phillips,
1969), Hunt’s (1978) conceptual level theory, and Loevinger’s (Loevinger & Blasi,
1977) ego development theory. The practical applications of constructivism have been
manifest through information-processing approaches such as teaching for conceptual
10
change (Posner, Strike, Hewson & Gertzog, 1982) and the learning cycle (Lawson,
Abraham & Renner, 1989). However, social learning theories such as Vygotsky’s
sociohistorical learning theory (Vygotsky, 1978) and Bandura’s observational learning
theory (Miller, 2002) have added a great deal to teacher knowledge about the strong
influences of social context on teaching and learning. Employing a
cognitive/developmental view of teacher learning permits teaching behaviorally discreet
skills, in addition to acknowledging contextual factors (Sprinthall & Thies-Sprinthall,
1980.)
Constructivism, when viewed as a personal enterprise, focuses on a few
common components. Learners bring a set of preconceived notions and personal
theories to every learning opportunity. Information is extracted from the environment,
compared to what is known, and is either rejected, accepted as is, or accepted with
modification into the learner’s knowledge base (Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 2000;
Loucks-Horsley, et al., 2003; Woolfolk, 2004). Two levels of conceptual change,
assimilation and accommodation, are commonly discussed (Duit & Treagust, 2003).
Assimilation occurs when a learner merely applies his existing beliefs and knowledge to
a new situation. The information gained is not fundamentally different from currently
held beliefs, but rather an enhancement or extension of what is already believed to be
true. Accommodation occurs when a learner is not able to apply his existing beliefs and
knowledge to achieve a satisfactory answer. When a whole class of problems defies
solution within a conceptual system then the student will enact a fundamental change in
his/her central conception in order to make sense of the phenomena. Accommodation is
a transformation to a new conceptual understanding. Meaningful learning is the term
11
applied when students successfully exchange incorrect for correct conceptual
knowledge. Through this evaluation process, learners construct meaning from both
personal and social experiences.
Constructivism, when viewed as a social enterprise, is grounded in
sociohistorical learning theory and based on the belief that historical antecedents temper
all knowledge (Wertsch, 1991). The key element of social constructivism is that humans
construct their knowledge from social interactions with other people, objects, cultural
mores, and social institutions. All information assimilated is processed through the lens
of prior experience situated in particular social encounters. Sociohistorical theory adds
the dimension of historical influence on the social construction of knowledge. Learning
and subsequently development occurs on multiple levels, phylogenetic which refers to
species level advancement, historical which refers to cultural level changes, ontogenetic
which concerns personal growth over a life time, and microgenetic, which is also
personal, but focuses mostly on growth in schooled knowledge (Cole, 1990).
Constructivism based on observational learning is based upon two concepts: (a)
social context influences learning through selective reinforcement and, (b) modeling
complex behaviors facilitates acquisition of knowledge as a system of interactive
components (Miller, 2002). Learning ballet, swimming, or other performance based
learning tasks requires observation of a more experienced other to understand what
counts as a successful completion. Observational learning may contribute heavily to
firmly held beliefs, because it occurs over time and in socially meaningful contexts.
Teachers have prior knowledge pertinent to subject matter, but they also have a great
deal of experience with schooling. “Teachers have spent over 3000 days as children and
12
young adults observing teachers (Kennedy, 1990a). Their experiences are tantamount to
an apprenticeship of observation, and it is one which is invested with emotion, given the
students’ dependence on the teacher” (Kennedy, 1991, p. 8).
In the study of teacher learning, the type of constructivist framework chosen is a
function of what type of knowledge is being investigated or promoted. Backwards
design, e.g., deciding what knowledge and/or skills are desired prior to planning
instruction, may be as useful in planning instruction for teachers as it is for students
(Wiggins & McTigue, 1998). Once a plan is in place for what knowledge is desired,
then a suitable framework can be selected to guide instructional technique. For example,
if the desired outcome is an increase in the depth of teacher content knowledge,
professional development planners need to emphasize Piagetian-style constructivism
that is focused on conceptual knowledge production. In contrast, if the goal is to
generate effective classroom teaching practice, influences from the social learning
theories such as Vygotsky-inspired constructivism are desirable. Researchers of teacher
learning and professional development planners are advised to select a theoretical
stance that most closely aligns to the type of knowledge being studied or desired as an
outcome (Orgill, Bodner, Ferguson, Hunter & Mayo, 2007.) Different types of
knowledge may warrant different theoretical leanings and instructional frameworks.
Types of Teacher Knowledge
Cognitive views of learning identify three types of knowledge: declarative,
procedural and conditional (Woolfolk, 2004). Declarative knowledge is information that
can be stated either verbally, written, or through some other symbol system. Declarative
knowledge is factual and frequently the type of information tested through multiple13
choice exams. Procedural knowledge utilizes declarative knowledge for action;
procedural knowledge must be demonstrated. Performance tasks such as solving
problems, playing a musical instrument, or writing an extended response to a prompt
could be used to assess procedural knowledge. Conditional knowledge combines
declarative and procedural knowledge by regulating when one discreet bit of knowledge
or procedure is appropriate for the given situation. Teacher learning, similar to student
learning can be expected to include all three types of knowledge.
Quantifying teacher knowledge is a difficult task because it entails multiple
perspectives. Shulman (1987) noted that studies of teaching typically occur in the social
setting of classrooms, while research into learning and development is conducted on
individuals. Some researchers approach the topic from the stance of research and theory
on learning in general; others focus on the relationship between education and society.
Considering specific content area knowledge needs and effective teaching practice are
two more views of teacher knowledge requirements. At the National Center for
Research on Teacher Learning, four elements are considered in evaluating teacher
learning research: the theoretical stance toward teachers as learners, concepts of teacher
tasks, features of teaching practice, and the context of public expectations (Kennedy,
1991).
When teachers are viewed as learners, constructivist teaching and learning
principles, widely employed with K-12 students, may be applied to adult instruction.
“Teachers, like other learners, interpret new content through existing understandings
and modify and reinterpret new ideas on the basis of what they already know or
believe” (Kennedy, 1991, p. 3). Other researchers have labeled the development of
14
increasingly more sophisticated ideas, theories and principles in teachers as the
scientific dimension of teacher learning (Schibeci & Hickey, 2000). Historically,
teacher research has been informed by behaviorist theory and focused on learning how
to teach (Loughran, 2007). Teacher knowledge was measured in terms of years of
experience, number of courses taken, or comprehensive multiple-choice exams (Abell,
2007). Now that teacher learning is equated with increasing conceptual understanding,
researchers utilize concept mapping, problem solving exercises, and classroom
observations to gauge teacher growth (Abell, 2007).
Kennedy (1991) defined the teaching task as “connecting important substantive
ideas to diverse learners” (p.11). The content of school subjects is often not taught in
teacher preparation programs, nor is the unique structure of state standards. Schibeci
and Hickey (2000) identified teacher-learning opportunities specifically focused on the
content teachers must teach as the professional dimension. In order to engage in
successful teaching, the teacher must possess a deep, thorough understanding of their
subject matter in order to explain concepts from multiple perspectives and to make
connections between/among concepts clear. The teacher must also know the common
misconceptions of their students, which concepts are hard for students to grasp, and
why. Teachers must understand which instructional representations will make sense to
their students. “To choose a worthwhile task then, teachers need to have enough
understanding of the subject to know which ideas are central, which are peripheral, how
different ideas relate to one another, and how these ideas can be interpreted to the
uninitiated” (Kennedy, p.13).
15
Knowledge of teaching practice entails teachers developing skill in interpreting
classroom events and student understanding on the fly during instruction (Kennedy,
1991). Reflection on the soundness of those pedagogical decisions may occur later, and
revisions implemented during the next instructional period. Logistical management
decisions may also be decided both during active instruction and later during a
reflective planning period. The flexibility necessary to mange the intellectual and
logistical demand of practice requires situated learning as the knowledge is dependent
upon the unique constellation of students and context. Schibeci and Hickey (2000)
suggested that this dimension of teacher learning could be labeled personal as it is
related to the day-to-day work of teaching, and that successful personal learning
provides motivation to teachers to continue learning more about practice.
Public expectations for graduates have changed from a desire for factory
workers who can follow directions, to employees who are flexible, adaptable, good
problem solvers, able to work in ambiguous situations, and able to work collaboratively
(Friedman, 2005). If this student expectation is applied to teachers, then the tenets of
transformative learning, that is, fundamental changes in beliefs, knowledge and practice
ought to be the goal for teacher learning (Loucks-Horsley, et al., 2003). “Historically,
professional development has focused on only adding new skills and knowledge
without helping teachers to rethink and discard or transform thinking and beliefs”
(Loucks-Horsley, p. 46).
Shulman (1986, 1987) has identified three major domains of teacher content
knowledge that are roughly similar to declarative, procedural and conditional
knowledge: subject content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical
16
content knowledge. Subject content knowledge corresponds to declarative knowledge
and comprises the facts, relational constructs and theoretical frameworks of an
identified body of information. Subject content knowledge includes more than simply
knowing the factual information associated with a subject area; knowledge of subject
content also implies knowing why something is true, and under what conditions it is
not. Pedagogical knowledge equates to procedural knowledge and has two dimensions
(a) general skill in classroom management and organization as well as (b) curricular
knowledge. Curricular knowledge is composed of knowing about the programs and
materials available and suitable for teaching the subject matter. The third domain of
teacher knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) mirrors conditional
knowledge in that it refers to knowing how to teach the content so that students can
learn it. PCK involves knowing the relative difficulty of the concepts, common student
misconceptions and instructional strategies that enhance student conceptual
understanding.
Shulman (1987) also identified three contextual elements important to
establishing a teacher knowledge base. Teachers must possess a thorough knowledge of
their students’ unique characteristics such as personal life circumstances, cultural
influences, and prior educational experiences. In addition, teachers must know the
political circumstances in which they work including local, state, and federal
instructional mandates as well as the inner workings of educational financial supports.
Finally, teachers must also have metacognitive awareness of their personal theoretical
positions on the purpose of schooling, how students learn, and the role of education in
society.
17
Abell (2007) has built upon Shulman’s designations of teacher knowledge by
constructing a concept map to highlight the relationships among the components
(Figure 2.1). The central item of the map is pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)
which contains five aspects: orientation toward teaching science, knowledge of science
learners, knowledge of science curriculum, knowledge of science instructional
strategies, and knowledge of science assessment. Three additional items influence PCK:
science subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and knowledge of context.
Science subject matter knowledge has two parts, science syntactic knowledge and
science substantive knowledge. Pedagogical knowledge has four aspects: instructional
principles, classroom management, learners and learning, and educational aims.
Knowledge of context includes being cognizant of student needs and interests as well
as, familiarization with school, community, and district expectations (Abell, p. 1107).
By making PCK the central component of teacher knowledge, Abell implies that the
subcomponents of PCK are developed through teacher learning in the other three
components: subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and context.
When viewed through a constructivist theoretical framework, supporting teacher
learning involves many of the same tenets as student learning. Knowledge is
evolutionary rather than static. It is constructed by each learner from both personal and
social interactions, and increases in complexity through successive iterations.
Individuals in the midst of conceptual change may hold seemingly contradictory beliefs
until sufficient experiences and/or mental organization permit resolution. The supports
provided to learners can have profound influence on the knowledge outcomes.
18
Science Subject Matter Knowledge
Pedagogical Knowledge
1. Science Syntactic
Knowledge
2. Science Substantive
Knowledge
1.
2.
3.
4.
Instructional Principles
Classroom Management
Learners and learning
Educational aims
Pedagogical Content Knowledge
1.
2.
3.
4.
Orientation toward teaching science
Knowledge of science learners
Knowledge of science curriculum
Knowledge of science instructional
strategies
5. Knowledge of science assessment
Knowledge of Context
1.
2.
3.
4.
Students
School
Community
District
Figure2.1. A Model of Teacher Knowledge (adapted from Abell, 2007).
19
The next section of this paper will address different types of professional development
strategies for enhancing teacher learning in science education.
Science Education Professional Development Models and Strategies
Professional development has been defined in urban settings as “those activities
that improve in-service teachers’ capacity to teach kindergarten to 12th-grade students
from ethnic, language, geographic, and socioeconomic populations placed at risk of
academic failure due to environmental conditions” (Knight & Wiseman, 2005, p. 392).
Other researchers frame professional development as “involving both informal and
planned learning, often involving input from others (such as academics and
consultants), and with the intention of improving the quality of teaching, and involving
the transformation of knowledge, values, and beliefs into classroom practice” (Schibeci
& Hickey, 2003, p.120). Lee, Hart, Cuevas, and Enders (2004) also link professional
development to “altering teachers’ beliefs and/or enabling teachers to engage in reformoriented instructional practices” (p.1023).
Teacher professional development is viewed as a critical piece in the puzzle of
implementing national science education reform efforts (Haney & Lumpe, 1995).
Classroom teachers provide the interface between those entities that regulate
educational requirements such as, state departments of education, and student outcomes.
Research supports the pivotal role of teachers indicating that teacher quality has a
greater impact on student achievement than any other factor (Knight & Wiseman,
2005). Implementing recommended curricula that frequently change due to dynamic
20
political agendas, and evolving academic research outcomes, necessitates a system for
keeping teachers current (Butler, Lauscher, Jarvis-Selinger & Beckingham, 2004).
Purpose of Professional Development
Broad goals of professional development may be set in terms of student
learning, teacher learning, teaching practice, or organizational concerns (LoucksHorsley, et al., 2003). Typically in practice, some combination of the four is utilized,
particularly if the professional development occurs over an extended period of time
involving cycles or phases of implementation. However, the broad assumption is that
improving teacher knowledge and skills will result in improved student knowledge and
skills.
Professional development programs focused on improving student learning cite
achievement disparities among their student accountability subgroups. Recent national
assessment results indicate that there still are significant achievement gaps among
students by race, gender and socio-economic standing (Borman & Associates, 2005;
NAEP, 2005). Some researchers attribute this situation to the pedagogy of poverty
(Kahle, Meece, & Scantlebury, 2000) in which students attending low achieving urban
schools receive didactic, non-constructivist learning opportunities. Few articles
featuring science professional development for teachers of diverse populations exist,
and even fewer empirical studies have been published (Knight & Wiseman, 2005).
However, it is important that professional development programs be devised to change
the pedagogy of poverty through closing opportunity to learn gaps as well as student
achievement gaps (Loucks-Horsley et al., 2003).
21
Professional development focused on increasing teacher learning frequently is
based upon the work of Shulman (1986) who defined three types of teacher content
knowledge: subject content knowledge, curricular content knowledge, and pedagogical
content knowledge. Subject content knowledge includes more than simply knowing the
factual information associated with a subject area; knowledge of content also implies
knowing why something is true, and under what conditions it is not. Curricular content
knowledge encompasses knowledge of the resources available for teaching a subject
and when to select one over another. Many school districts supply science kits to the
teachers, but frequently other resources such as interactive websites, working scientists
in the community, or outreach programs from museums may greatly enhance the
learning episode. A teacher with curricular content knowledge would supplement the
given materials with additional items and opportunities. Pedagogical content knowledge
(PCK) is “in a word, the ways of representing and formulating the subject that make it
comprehensible to others” (Shulman, p.9). PCK includes knowing the typical
misunderstandings students hold and which aspects of the information are difficult or
easy to grasp.
Professional development focused on improving teacher practice emphasizes
transforming national and state standards into measurable student learning. Many
districts have adopted the policy of developing SMART (Specific, Measurable,
Attainable, Results-oriented, and Time-bound) goals to link teacher knowledge,
curriculum standards and student conceptual understanding (Kelleher, 2003). In order
for practice to change, teacher knowledge in all of its forms must be adequate and
22
teacher beliefs must be aligned with reform initiatives (Rannikmae, Holbrook, & Teppo,
2007).
Professional development based upon organizational goals often targets building
capacity to sustain reform initiatives. Many of the Local Systemic Change (LSC) grant
programs had the training of teacher leaders, curriculum alignment, and development of
formative assessment as key elements (Banilower, et al., 2006.) Many researchers have
reported the need for sustained teacher support following professional development
events (Kahle, et al., 2000).
Standards for Effective Professional Development
In 1996, the National Research Council (NRC) published the National Science
Education Standards (NSES), a set of standards for “what students need to know,
understand, and be able to do to be scientifically literate at different grade levels”,
(NRC, 1996, p.2). This document was intended as a tool for planning instruction to
ensure high quality learning outcomes for all students. One section of the NSES was
devoted to outlining standards for science teacher professional development. The
standards specified teacher-learning needs in four broad areas. First, teachers must learn
essential science content knowledge through the perspectives and methods of inquiry.
Second, teachers must also learn to integrate science knowledge with pedagogy suitable
for a wide array of student learning needs. Third, professional development for science
teachers must instill the understanding that learning science is a life-long endeavor.
Lastly, professional development programs must be coherent and integrated to permit
learning over time.
23
These standards were built upon four basic assumptions about the process of
treating adults as learners. The inquiring minds that become science teachers never stop
learning, so professional development for a teacher of science is a continuous life-long
process. Differentiating participant/provider roles is artificial. Adult learners bring a
great deal of prior knowledge and expertise to a professional development event and as
such should be treated as knowledgeable others, i.e. participants in a learning
community. The conventional process/product view of professional development for
teachers is inadequate to meet the dynamic learning needs of teachers; they need
opportunities for intellectual professional growth. These growth opportunities must be
clearly and appropriately imbedded in teachers’ work in the context of the school.
Since the NSES were published, a great deal of research has occurred with the
intent of discovering effective strategies for implementing the standards. Borman et al.
(2005) cited ten attributes of high-quality professional development identified by the
National Education Association (NEA) Foundation for the Improvement of Education.
Table 2.1 lists these attributes grouped under the four broad goals identified by LoucksHorsley et al. (2003), student learning, teacher learning, teaching practice, and
organizational concerns.
24
Outcome Goals
Student learning
Teacher learning
Teacher practice
Attributes
•
Improves student learning.
•
Fosters better subject matter knowledge, greater
understanding of learning, and a full appreciation of
students’ needs.
•
Is site based and supportive of a clear vision for
student achievement
•
Allows enough time for inquiry, reflection, and
mentoring and is part of the normal school day.
•
Is directed toward teachers’ intellectual development
and leadership.
•
Is designed and directed by teachers and includes the
best principles of adult learning.
•
Helps educators meet the needs of students who learn
in different ways and come from diverse backgrounds.
•
Is sustained, rigorous, and adequate to the long-term
change of practice.
•
Makes the best use of new technologies.
Organizational/profession •
concerns
Balances individual priorities with school and district
needs, and advances the profession as a whole.
Table 2.1. Attributes of High Quality Professional Development.
Professional teacher organizations such as the National Science Teachers
Association (NSTA) have also built upon the standards and adopted research-based
position statements regarding essential elements of effective professional development.
The position statements clarify the original four NSES assumptions by highlighting the
connections to student and teacher learning.
25
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Professional development programs should be based on student learning needs
and should help science educators address difficulties students have with
subject-matter knowledge and skills.
Professional development programs should be based on the needs of science
educators—of both individuals and members of collaborative groups—who
are involved in the program. Ongoing professional development initiatives
should be assessed and refined to meet teachers’ changing needs.
Professional development should be integrated and coordinated with other
initiatives in schools and embedded in curriculum, instruction, and
assessment practices.
Professional development programs should maintain a sustained focus over
time, providing opportunity for continuous improvement.
Professional development should actively involve teachers in observing,
analyzing, and applying feedback to teaching practices.
Professional development should concentrate on specific issues of science
content and pedagogy that are derived from research and exemplary
practice. Programs should connect issues of instruction and student learning
of knowledge and skills to the actual context of classrooms.
Professional development should promote collaboration among teachers in the
same school, grade, or subject.
NSTA (2006)
Guskey (2003) reviewed 13 lists of effective professional developments criteria
and discovered wide variation in epistemological stances, characteristics highlighted,
and means of measuring the outcomes. Variation in program goals such as: developing
awareness of reform initiatives, building knowledge, translating knowledge into
classroom practice through writing lessons, improving lesson implementation, or
reflection of practice on student outcomes (Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for
Mathematics and Science Education, n.d.) differentiate the desired outcomes for
professional development. However, Guskey stated that one criterion was indispensable
for evaluating professional development: improved student achievement. The
improvement should be measured in multiple ways including: standardized achievement
tests, course grades, criterion referenced tests, and performance based assessments. If it
26
is accepted that the purpose of schooling is to educate the students, then all resources
ought to be explicitly related to student learning. Effective teacher professional
development must lead to improved student achievement. Measuring the effectiveness
of professional development cannot be based upon the “happiness quotient- how
satisfied teachers are with a particular workshop- but rather what effect professional
development will have on student learning” (Kelleher, 2003).
Classification of Professional Development
Sparks and Loucks-Horsley (1989) published a seminal article identifying five
models of staff development. The principal process of enactment defined the models.
The first model was named Individually Guided and was characterized by teachers selfselecting an activity for personal learning. The activities chosen met a personal need for
knowledge and could be as simple as reading a book or planning an integrated
curriculum unit. The second model was Observation and Assessment, which featured
reflection and analysis upon the observation by a second person. Examples of this type
were peer or consultant coaching, and clinical supervision. The third model was called
Involvement in a Development/Improvement Process and cast teachers into
collaborative groups engaging in curriculum writing, program design, or creating school
improvement action plans. The fourth model Training became for most teachers the
only form of professional development experienced. In the training model, teachers
were typically the recipients of stand-alone workshops conducted through a lecture
format by outside experts on a specific topic. The final model Inquiry centered on
reflective practice as described by John Dewey (1960) and put into practice as
classroom action research modeled after Schön (1983).
27
Other chroniclers of professional development (Sprinthall, Reiman, & ThiesSprinthall, 1996) organized a review around a statement by the philosopher Gilbert Ryle
who “provided a succinct differentiation between knowledge about (theory-description)
and knowledge how-to (program-description)” (p.668). Teacher professional
development that aligns with Ryle’s concept of knowledge about was categorized under
the grouping, Theories for the Teacher as an Adult Learner. Principles of adult learning
were drawn from cognitive and social constructivist learning theories, information
processing theory, belief and attitude inventories, career development and ladder
phases, and gender differences. The authors indicated that, in order for professional
development to result in satisfactory outcomes; it needs to be a good match with
teachers’ cognitive, sociocultural, and emotional status.
The second broad category of Sprinthall, et al. (1996), Teacher Development:
Approaches and Programs, focused on how professional development practices are
linked to theory. Two types of programs were described: the craft model and the expert
model. The craft model is based upon the assumption that a set of superior teaching
practices exists that ought to be shared with all teachers. These practices are the result
of “the accumulated wisdom from teachers and/or practice –oriented researchers”
(p.677). In many respects, craft knowledge seems quite similar to pedagogical content
knowledge (Shulman, 1986) without the assurances of accurate teacher subject
knowledge. Updated craft model programs built on the romantic view of accumulated
teacher wisdom, but added scientifically acquired data to decide which bits of wisdom
were worth encouraging. One notable example is the Essential Schools program
initiated by Ted Sizer (Morris, Chrispeels & Burke, 2003). Other types of craft model28
like programs include utilizing autobiographical case studies of successful practice,
school-based management teams, regional teacher resource centers, and teacher renewal
retreat locations.
The third type of professional development described by Sprinthall, et al.
(1996), Interactive Models, combines the concepts of teacher-as-an-adult-learner and
teacher-as-source-of-accumulated-wisdom. “Learning that impacts cognitive structure
and promotes more complex cognitions requires the active participation of the learner
(Anderson, 1990; Piaget, 1972; Vygotsky, 1978). The interactive models all seek to
engage the teacher as an active participant in the learning process” (p. 687). The
interactive models are based in teacher inquiry, cognitive and social constructivism, and
transformative learning. Notable examples include teacher as reflective practitioner,
teacher as action researcher, interactive partnership models, and mentoring/coaching
programs. In each case, teachers build on and refine their existing knowledge through
engaging in inquiry.
Program developers of teacher professional development need to consider
theory, practice, and research when designing programs. “Without a careful integration
of the three components [teachers] will continue to traverse from fad to fad- perhaps
blissfully unaware of the distinctions between the cosmic and the trivial” (Sprinthall, et
al., 1996, p. 667).
Researchers specializing in the fields of science and mathematics education have
recently published a framework for designing professional development that does
combine multiple influences (Loucks-Horsley, et al., 2003). The framework builds upon
the earlier Five Model research by Sparks and Loucks-Horsley (1989) by recognizing
29
sociocultural factors that influence appropriate choices for professional development.
The design of a professional development program should consider: the knowledge and
beliefs of the stakeholders, the context, in which the teachers work, and the critical
issues that must be resolved. Ignoring these sociocultural factors seemed to doom weak
programs to failure and seriously jeopardize strong ones. Teachers must be viewed as
adult learners influenced by the complex social setting in which they live and teach.
Knowledge and Beliefs
•
Learners and learning
•
Teachers and teaching
•
Nature of science
•
Nature of mathematics
•
Professional
development
•
The change process
Context
•
Students, standards and
learning results
•
Teachers and their
learning needs
•
Curriculum, instruction,
assessment practices
and the learning
environment
•
Organizational culture
•
Organizational structure
and leadership
•
National, state, and
local policies
•
Available resources
•
History of professional
development
•
Parents and the
community
Critical Issues
•
Finding time for
professional
development
•
Ensuring equity
•
Building professional
culture
•
Developing
leadership
•
Building capacity for
sustainability
•
Scaling up
•
Garnering public
support
Table 2.2. Factors Impacting the Design of Professional Development Programs.
30
Table 2.2 was adapted from information in Loucks-Horsley et al. (2003) and lists
possible considerations in each of the three areas.
Loucks-Horsley et al. (2003) found that in practice, most professional
development episodes were not pure iterations of one the original five models; rather
actual programs shared a set of 18 strategies that were divided across six themes: (a)
aligning and implementing curriculum; (b) collaborative structures; (c) examining
teaching and learning; (d) immersion experiences; (e) practicing teaching; and (f)
vehicles and mechanisms (p.12). Strategies employed within the first theme support
development of Shulman’s concept of curriculum content knowledge. Teachers would
spend time learning how to implement new curriculum, selecting appropriate classroom
materials, aligning classroom activities with standards or designing new curriculum.
Collaborative structures refer to teachers working in networks, study groups or
partnering with mathematical/scientific professionals in the workplace. Professional
development focused on the examination of teaching and learning would involve
teachers in classroom action research, lesson study, writing case studies or examining
student work perhaps through scoring assessments and reflecting on the student
outcomes. Immersion experiences frequently place teachers in working laboratories or
ongoing scientific research projects to work side-by-side with scientists or
mathematicians. Teachers have first hand experience with inquiry as practiced by the
scientific community. Practicing teaching involves teaching other teachers through
mentoring or coaching programs. Frequently, mentor teachers model appropriate
pedagogy for new or struggling teachers. The last theme, vehicles and mechanisms,
validates the necessity for expert knowledge external to the teacher and the teacher’s
31
immediate working environment. Strategies in this theme include workshops, institutes,
seminars, and university courses. In some cases, electronic learning communities have
been established through chat rooms moderated by experts, video conferencing, or
online courses. A well-known strategy in this theme is the development of professional
developers, formerly known as the train-the-trainer model.
This list of six themes is not exhaustive of techniques in current practice, but
will be utilized here to organize a review of current articles in the professional
literature. Many of the professional development projects investigated and reported do
not fit neatly into one category or another, but for ease of discussion have been
arbitrarily assigned to a category which appears to capture the dominant elements of the
program. The first group of articles must have a classification of their own because they
are summaries of summaries and the exact nature of the professional development was
not reported.
Current Research in Science Education Professional Development
Analyses of Large Scale Multi-Site Science Education Programs
Banilower et al. (2006) analyzed ten years of annual reports submitted by 88
Local System Change (LSC) projects support by the National Science Foundation. One
of the primary goals of the LSC funded projects was to “improve instruction in science,
mathematics, and technology through teacher professional development within whole
schools or school districts” (p.1). There were many design variations among the
programs, but all were supposed to be based on five principles:
1. Use of professional development providers highly competent in subject
content and standards-based reform pedagogy for science education.
32
2. Establishing a collegial atmosphere for teachers as learners.
3. Focused delivery of subject and pedagogical content knowledge.
4. Providing high quality instructional materials and the training for
teachers to develop curriculum content knowledge.
5. Providing sustained support to teachers.
The purpose of this evaluation was to determine: (a) the overall quality of the
professional development offered; (b) the extent of teacher and district involvement; (c)
the impact on teacher preparedness, attitudes and beliefs about science, mathematics,
and technology teaching; (d) the impact on classroom practices; (e) changes in districts’
vision for exemplary science, mathematics, and technology education; and (f) the extent
of districts’ institutionalization of high quality science, mathematics, and technology
professional development. The annual reports included multiple data sources:
classroom teachers, principals and LSC support personnel. Teacher data were in the
form of interviews, questionnaires, and classroom observation reports. Principals
completed a questionnaire as well. LSC principal investigators and evaluators
completed project rating scales and questionnaires. LSC principal investigators also
were interviewed. Everyone was observed during professional development activities.
Banilower et al. (2006) found that the LSC goal of providing high quality
professional development was met. Typically, summer institutes lasting one to two
weeks were offered and followed up with periodic professional development and
support throughout the school year. The follow-up activities varied widely from site to
site and included: workshops/seminars, content institutes, study groups, coaching,
mentoring, demonstration teaching, and classroom observations followed up with
33
debriefings. In nearly 50% of the sessions, teachers were engaged in learning through
inquiry, 17% of the sessions involved lecture, and 27% were based on examining
classroom practice and/or student work.
Achieving extensive involvement of teachers and districts was not as successful
as hoped. Large numbers of teachers did receive many hours of high quality
professional development. However, project planners underestimated the high rates of
teacher mobility within districts, from one teaching assignment to another, and losses
due to retirement, resignations and staff reductions. Other factors negatively impacting
teacher participation included shifting curricular priorities (from science to reading)
within districts due to Federal accountability guidelines and district budget reductions
resulting in the loss of professional development days and funding for substitute
teachers.
Data collected indicated that teacher participation in LSC professional
development had a small positive increase in teacher perceptions of pedagogical
preparedness, attitudes and beliefs regarding reform-oriented teaching in science.
Classroom observations by project evaluators confirmed that teacher participation in
LSC professional development resulted in higher quality lessons. A positive correlation
was found between the number of hours attending professional development and high
evaluator ratings of classroom lessons.
LSC projects appear to have made positive progress in establishing acceptance
of standards-based reforms in science teaching. At sites where LSC principal
investigators cultivated principal, school district, and community buy-in, greater project
ratings were achieved. In some situations, creative community partnerships have been
34
formed to sustain LSC initiatives beyond the duration of the grant. In other locations
districts have purchased the recommended high quality materials, rewritten curricula,
and restructured the ways teachers receive classroom support in science.
The researchers concluded that overall, the LSC projects met the goals of
providing high quality professional development, improving teacher knowledge and
skills to teach science, and changing the institutional culture of how to “do” science.
Remaining challenges include guaranteeing the subject content knowledge of
professional development providers, devoting more time to increasing teacher content
knowledge and less time to curricular content knowledge, increasing the amount of
ongoing teacher support, including principals in training, and increasing the number of
opportunities for teachers to attend professional development.
Borman et al. (2005) surveyed teachers and administrators at 47 Urban Systemic
Initiative school sites in four large urban districts: Chicago, El Paso, Memphis, and
Miami-Dade. The purpose of the survey was to ascertain teacher perceptions of what
aspects of the LSC professional development were effective. The research questions
were: (a) what components of professional development helped the most, (b) what
challenges were experienced as a result of the professional development, (c) did the
professional development alter teacher beliefs about teaching and learning, and (d) what
changes in classroom practice occurred. Data were obtained from a Survey of
Classroom Practices and audio taped focus group meetings. Data indicated that the
professional development components that helped the most and made changes in
classroom practice focused on: using multiple assessment strategies, incorporating
technology, differentiating instruction, learning about new standards, methods, and
35
curricular materials. Sessions that were not perceived to be useful by the teachers
seemed to have unacceptable time requirements: participating in networks or study
groups, attending training institutes exceeding 40 hours, observing other teachers,
portfolio assessment, and reading or journal writing. Teachers reported that they
increased their content knowledge and appreciated the professional development
received, but needed more support to implement the strategies in their classrooms. The
preferred structure of professional development was through active participation at
teachers’ home buildings.
Cormas, Barufaldi, Fleming, and Mezei (2007), analyzed the findings section of
21 GK-12 summary reports to catalogue effective characteristics reported to have
resulted from this professional development opportunity. The GK-12 programs, funded
by the National Science Foundation, were collaborations between institutions of higher
learning and local school districts. Graduate and advanced undergraduate students from
the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) were placed in
K-12 classrooms to work with teachers. Among the goals of the GK-12 programs were,
to improve student and teacher content knowledge. Effective Research-Based
Characteristics of Professional Development (ERBCPD); an instrument previously
developed by Cormas was used to evaluate the reports. Eighteen characteristics were
coded but only five were included in at least 50% of the reports and agreed upon by the
reviewers of the reports. The most frequently mentioned effective characteristics were:
(a) treats teachers as professionals, (b) involves collaboration among teachers and
others, (c) professional development is ongoing, (d) improves communication skills (of
the university students), and (d) professional development occurred in the home
36
environment of the teachers. Cormas et al. concluded that the absence in the data of
references to student or teaching content learning indicated that improvement in
monitoring the quality of professional development in GK-12 programs was warranted.
Schibeci and Hickey (2003) investigated the factors influential in 28 primary
grade teachers’ decisions to attend or avoid science professional development. Data
sources were audio taped individual teacher interviews and selected teacher professional
development attendance records. Eight factors were found to be highly influential:
opportunity, compulsion, convenience, enticement, interest, recommendation,
relevance, and commitment. Unexpected information that emerged from the data was
the degree to which teachers’ life experiences contributed to their science content
knowledge. Hobbies, vacations, previous job experiences, occupations of family
members, and elective reading by the teachers, contributed to their knowledge and
understanding of science content. The researchers suggested that professional
development providers consider teachers’ prior knowledge when planning sessions.
Aligning and Implementing Curriculum
This section relates current research consistent with the first Loucks-Horsley et
al. (2003) theme. In aligning and implementing curriculum, teachers increase their
knowledge and skills through learning how to implement new curriculum, writing new
curriculum, aligning classroom practice to curriculum, or selecting appropriate
classroom materials.
Beyer, et al. (2007) investigated the potential opportunities for individual
teacher professional development through utilizing the teacher editions and supplements
accompanying textbook series. A modified form of Davis and Krajcik’s design heuristic
37
for educative materials was applied to the teacher editions and/or teacher guides of eight
biology textbook programs. The research questions centered on finding instances of
teacher support in terms of: (a) teacher subject content knowledge, (b) PCK for teaching
through inquiry, and (c) PCK for science topics. In addition, the researchers
documented how often a rationale was provided for the supports compared to the
frequency of implementation guidance. Data indicated that teachers could reliably use
the teacher editions for subject content knowledge but not PCK for either inquiry or
science topics. Furthermore, the textbooks provided more support for implementation
(how to do it) than rationale (why to do it). The researchers stated that the development
of improved science curriculum materials to assist teachers in fostering deep student
conceptual understanding was warranted.
Elster (2007) reported results from a 3-year European Development of
Innovative Science Teaching (EUDIST) project in which Austrian teacher-teams
collaborated with subject experts, and pedagogical experts to generate integrated
science curriculum units. Teaching science through integrated units was a significant
departure from the traditional pedagogy and therefore necessitated new curriculum. A
key element in EUDIST school improvement projects was the inclusion of teacher
expertise in document and program planning. Data sources included discourse from
group meetings, case study reflection papers written by the teachers, co-constructed
training documents and school team generated mind maps, which are a type of flow
chart. Loucks-Horsley et al. (2003) classified curriculum writing under the theme
aligning and implementing curriculum, although the long-term professional learning
community nature of this project may also categorize it as collaborative structures. The
38
end product of this professional development project was a curriculum document
utilized throughout the school system.
Collaborative Structure
Loucks-Horsley et al. (2003) described collaborative structures as those
programs involving professional learning communities, networks, communities of
practice, study groups, or community partnerships. Only one example was found in the
current literature.
Palincsar, Magnusson, Marano, Ford and Brown (1998) reported about a
Community of Practice (COP) formed for the purpose of co-constructing formal
knowledge of the practice of inquiry-based science teaching in elementary school.
Eighteen teachers from grades K-5 in schools predominately populated by economically
disadvantaged students joined with two university instructors, one in science education
and the other literacy, and their doctoral students. The intent of the group was to mesh
the theoretical knowledge of the university experts with the practical knowledge of the
classroom teachers into an orientation called Guided Inquiry supporting Multiple
Literacies (GIsML). Data sources included video taped classroom lessons, written
lesson plans, observations, and student assessments. The project was initiated with two
separate weeklong summer seminars. The first week focused on teachers learning about
inquiry teaching through actually conducting investigations in the morning and in the
afternoon debriefing with the university instructor to learn about the PCK employed in
the morning session. During the second summer seminar, teacher teams planned and
taught inquiry lessons to each other which were videotaped for group analysis. Teachers
wrote journal entries recording their thoughts about the analysis. During the school
39
year, the COP met twice a month to analyze GIsML planned lessons that the teachers
had taught in their own classrooms. Prior to presenting a teaching episode video to the
entire group, teachers debriefed with a university instructor. Specific student conceptual
understanding information was collected through pre-and post lesson assessments. Data
suggest that a successful COP was formed as evidenced by teachers routinely citing
contributions from each other during lesson analyses, and teachers forming smaller
special interest groups within the COP for further study. One teacher confirmed the
sense of group identity when she asked permission of the group to utilize GIsML
lessons in a different instructional setting.
Examining Teaching and Learning
Programs in this category involve teachers in classroom action research, lesson
study, writing case studies, or evaluating student work in terms of the attainment of preset criteria. Reflection and evaluation figured prominently in the teacher development
activities in this theme.
Chen, Schwille, and Wickler (2007) reported an ongoing project in which
teachers examined teaching and learning through lesson study. Sixteen teachers from
grades 4, 5, and 6 participated in an intensive three-week summer institute to receive
training in grade level specific subject content knowledge and lesson analysis
techniques. Teachers were taught strategies for linking subject content to student
learning through analyzing classroom videocases. A videocase was composed of one or
more classroom videos plus all related teacher/student artifacts documenting a series of
lessons. Throughout the school year teachers met monthly to review each other’s
videocases. Data sources included: pre-and post- training classroom videos of each
40
teacher; written teacher subject content tests taken pre- and post- summer training and
then again at the end of the school year; three written teacher analyses of videocases;
and student pre- and post- school year subject content assessments. The intent of the
project was to increase teacher and student subject content knowledge, increase teacher
skill in critiquing lessons, and to promote reform-based science teaching practices. At
the time this paper was distributed at the annual meeting of National Association for
Research in Science Teaching, April 2007, no summative data were available.
Doyle (2007) also reported a lesson study utilizing classroom video to improve
teacher subject and pedagogical content knowledge. Eighteen preservice teachers
enrolled in a science methods class worked in small groups to plan and teach lessons to
children in regular classrooms. The lessons were videotaped for co-analysis with an
expert other, usually the cooperating classroom teacher. The preservice teachers wrote a
summary paper following the analysis. Research data sources included written lesson
plans, videotaped lessons and university instructor video observation notes. Document
analysis and oral inquiry results indicated that nine of the preservice teachers showed
evidence of increased PCK. The remaining preservice teachers had problems with
incorrect subject content knowledge, faulty lesson plans, missed opportunities to
address children’s misconceptions or classroom management issues.
Wong, Cheng and Yung (2007) investigated strategies for increasing high
school science teachers PCK in physics (n=2), biology (n=2), and chemistry (n=1). Data
sources were teacher responses to the Views of the Nature of Science (VNOS)
questionnaire, classroom videos, study group discussion notes, teacher semi-structured
interviews and a post-project questionnaire. The strategies offered to the teachers were
41
attending a six-hour training session featuring (a) instruction about NOS, (b) a rationale
for new curricular materials, and (c) how to review videotaped lessons. An alternate
choice was to implement classroom lessons and analyzing videotapes of the lessons
with the curriculum writers and other teachers. Data indicated that the most effective
strategies were implementing the lessons and reviewing the videotapes in a study group.
Trendel, Fischer, Reyer and Wackermann (2007) assisted 18 high school physics
teachers in Germany to engage in videotaped lesson analysis. The teachers received
initial training in applying the theory of Basis Models of Teaching and Learning
proposed by Oser and Baeriswyl, (2001). This theory involves identifying systematic
linkages between learning goals and learning processes. Throughout the school term,
the teachers videotaped five lessons and met both as a group and individually with a
coach to analyze the lessons. Data sources included a teacher questionnaire, a structured
teacher interview, co-constructed video analysis of five different lessons, student
examinations, and a student perception inventory. The research questions examined
how teachers used PCK to pursue classroom instructional goals and what changes
resulted from the professional development lesson study. The findings indicated that
using videotaped lessons was an effective means of focusing on teacher intent and
student outcomes. Teachers easily identified lapses in implementing the Basis Model
and were able to propose lesson revision. Over the course of the project, teachers
increased the level of cognitive activity in their classrooms.
Immersion Experience
Loucks-Horsley et al. (2003) characterized this theme by the authentic inquiry
experiences of teachers with real-world scientists and mathematicians.
42
Grove and Dixon (2007) investigated the participation of 13 K-12 classroom
teachers in the Research Experience for Teachers (RET) program. This program places
teachers with a mentor scientist for six weeks to engage in authentic inquiry. The RET
program was based upon five elements of high quality science teaching: inquiry, NOS,
experimental design, process skills, and communication about science. Teachers were
screened for suitability to participate in this situated cognition type of apprenticeship.
Teachers needed to submit a written lesson plan and a videotape of a typical science
lesson with their application. During the six-week mentorship, the teachers attended a
weekly colloquium discussion (conducted by a RET staff member) around the five
elements in relation to their laboratory participation. Two days after each colloquium an
expert in the field conducted a follow-up discussion with the teachers around the five
elements. Data sources for this research included pre-RET experience written lesson
plans and videotape, pre-and post-program interviews, revisited lesson plans, postprogram classroom observations, and follow-up interviews of the five teachers
observed. Results were interpreted in terms of expectancy theory, which suggests that
rich, laboratory or field science experiences may change a teacher’s perception of how
science really works in applied venues and subsequently alter classroom practice. Data
indicated that teachers increased their understanding of the five RET elements. Many of
the teachers reported that they would make changes to their submitted lesson plans as a
result of their RET experience. However, classroom observations indicated very little
change in teaching practice. Grove and Dixon cited research suggesting that dramatic
changes to teaching practice do not occur immediately, but rather changes will be
43
enacted over time. A follow-up study of previous RET participants was planned to see
if the five RET elements have been incorporated over time.
Practicing Teaching
The unusual theme title, practicing teaching, indicates programs in which
teachers either provide or receive mentoring or coaching on their teaching practice.
Personal growth occurs whether one is the provider or the receiver of services, similar
to reciprocal teaching.
Koch and Appleton (2007) reported on the effect of a mentoring model of
professional development with two Australian year-7 teachers. The mentoring was
initiated with a full day workshop on inquiry methods and co-constructing an
instructional unit on mystery matter, which involved identifying a number of similarly
looking white powders. Over a ten-week period, mentoring was enacted in three ways:
semi-formal small group activities, cooperative lesson planning, and cooperative
teaching. Data were collected from researcher classroom observation notes, pre-and
post-mentoring interviews, and an episode of Draw-a-Science-Teacher-Test (DAST-T).
The research question was to discover pedagogical changes occurring during and after
the mentoring process. Data indicated that both teachers increased their efficacy for
teaching science. Both teachers also improved their classroom questioning techniques
and implementation of student inquiry.
Sterling, Frazier, Logerwell, and Dunn (2007) investigated a variety of support
measures for the support and retention of non-certified science teachers. The New
Science Teachers Support Network (NSTSN) was established to provide professional
development during the first two years of non-certified teachers’ careers. Thirty-six new
44
suburban high school teachers participated in the study; 21 of them were in the
treatment group. Supports given to the treatment group were extensive and included:
two university taught methods courses, coaching (96 contact hours the first year and 24
hours the second) by a retired science Master Teacher, unlimited access to an onsite
colleague teacher mentor, access to a university subject content mentor, and teacher
resource support via the NSTSN website. Data were collected from students, coaches,
and the teachers themselves. Student achievement data were collected in the forms of
course grades, end-of-course exams, and state mandated achievement tests. The coaches
provided a performance rating and regular classroom observation reports. The teachers
completed online efficacy surveys three times the first year and two times the second
year. There were three types of efficacy surveys: teacher self-efficacy, efficacy for
teaching diverse students, and science teaching efficacy. Findings indicated that there
was no significant difference between treatment and control teachers on any of the three
efficacy scales. Student assessments indicated that the students of the treatment teachers
had higher state standardized test scores; results for student grades however were mixed
among the grade levels and courses. Data from the coach ratings and observation
reports indicated higher growth in classroom management, planning and instruction for
teachers who had received support through NSTSN.
Vehicles and Mechanisms
Programs categorized under this theme include traditional workshops, seminars,
course, and institutes. The training sessions may occur face-to-face or in some cases
through electronic learning communities moderated by experts, video conferencing, or
online courses. A well-known strategy in this theme is the development of professional
45
developers, formerly known as the train-the-trainer model. The most important feature
of this category is the use of outside experts to bring new knowledge to teachers.
Rannikmae, et al. (2007) reported a multi-year study to follow and document the
sustainability of science teacher change toward Scientific and Technological Literacy
(STL) teaching. Twenty experienced high school chemistry teachers participated in this
study. In the first year, teachers were introduced to the philosophy and instructional
techniques of STL. The STL approach focused on teaching science through problem
solving of current socially relevant issues. The model highlighted teaching key
scientific conceptual understandings in relation to social, environmental, ethical, and
personal components. Embedding science learning in social issues was expected to
increase student engagement and increase conceptual understanding. In the first year, an
emphasis was placed on teachers creating and field-testing curricular materials
consistent with STL. Teachers were provided with regular inservice support in STL
during Years 2-5 of the study. Data were collected twice from teacher generated
teaching-learning charts. The first was created at the end of the first year in which
extensive professional development occurred, and again five years later. Results
indicated that pedagogical change depended upon teachers developing ownership of
reform initiatives. Little evidence could be found indicating pedagogical acceptance of
Scientific and Technological Literacy principles. A few teachers utilized social issues to
introduce a topic, but most continued to rely on a traditional textbook based approach to
instruction.
Nichols, Churach, and Fisher (2007) inquired into teacher attitudes regarding the
mining and mineral processing industry following an intensive training effort. The
46
underlying purpose of the training was to increase the number of people choosing to
enter the mining and mineral processing industry. It was not the intent to recruit the
teachers, but rather for the teachers to give their students an inviting view of the
industry. A government funded research center, university science department, and
industry partners collaborated in providing professional development training to 44
Australian classroom teachers. The training consisted of short courses, workshops, and
lectures on resource processing techniques to increase subject content knowledge. To
build knowledge of how the geological sciences are applied, tours of the research
facility and industrial sites, as well as mini-sessions explicating the processing industry
structure were given. The data source was an attitude inventory composed of 16 Likerttype items. Data results indicated that the teachers had increased positive attitudes
toward the mining and mineral industry following the training.
Lee et al. (2004) investigated teacher beliefs about teaching science through
inquiry before and after a yearlong training program. This study was part of a larger
study introducing science to a diverse student population and incorporated cultural and
linguistic accommodations in an effort to close achievement gaps. The teacher
participants were 53 third and fourth grade teachers in six schools of a large urban
school district. A lack of instructional materials consistent with the researchers’ goals,
necessitated the development of two units for each grade level incorporating inquiry,
cultural considerations, English Second Language (ESL) supports, and basic literacy.
Teacher guides were also developed containing content specific teaching strategies.
Over the course of the school year, teachers attended four full day workshops during
normal school hours. The first workshop focused on the role of inquiry in science and
47
how to engage students in inquiry. The second workshop was devoted to ESL
accommodations and facilitating literacy through science. The third workshop
addressed the importance of including students’ home culture and language into daily
instruction. During the fourth (last) workshop, teachers shared their implementation
experiences. Data sources included pre- and post-training focus group interviews, a post
project teacher questionnaire, and classroom observation notes. Classroom observations
were coded for scientific understanding, use of inquiry, presence of discourse, and
teacher subject content knowledge. The teacher questionnaire and focus group
responses indicated that the teachers felt more prepared and had an increased positive
attitude toward inquiry science. Classroom observations however, did not indicate much
change in actual practice.
Krockover and Carleton (2007) also investigated changes in teacher beliefs
following a yearlong training program. The training “focused on assisting teachers in
meeting state and national education standards by integrating constructivist-based,
inquiry-oriented teaching techniques into classroom” instruction (p.3). The program
consisted of a two-week summer institute modeling the use of science at a contrived,
crime scene investigation. The emphasis was placed on utilizing inquiry and
constructivist methods to solve the make-believe crime. During the two-week period
teachers also collaborated to write an instructional unit to teach the following school
year. Two refresher sessions occurred during the school year and teachers presented the
outcomes of their instructional unit at a spring state science conference. Three
administrations of the Context Beliefs about Teaching Science (CBATS) and teacher
reflection papers provided the data for analysis. Data indicated that there was an overall
48
increase in teachers’ beliefs about their teaching context; however, there were variable
outcomes among the subscales on the CBATS. Participants were challenged by time
constraints, student behavior, and lack of student prior subject content knowledge.
Nevertheless, teacher beliefs regarding availability of high quality instructional
materials and administrator support for science education increased, but enabling beliefs
in terms of power differentials with state board of education directives remained low.
Rogers et al. (2007) investigated teachers’ and professional development
providers’ views of the most effective components of a yearlong professional
development program. The program included attendance at a two-to-three week
summer institute focused on inquiry-based teaching projects and several follow-up
sessions throughout the school year. The data source was individually conducted, semistructured interviews with 72 teachers and 32 professional development providers.
Interview comments from the teachers revealed that they valued receiving instructional
activities that were ready-to-use in their classrooms. Teachers also appreciated
professional development sessions in which they actively engaged in the student
activities to fully grasp potential implementation challenges. Developing networks with
other teachers was the third component mentioned by teachers. Providers thought that
effective professional development included practical and grade level specific activities.
Providers also thought that it was important to allow teachers time to engage in guided
inquiry with the student activities and to model the use of research-based teaching
strategies. Providers emphasized the effectiveness of debriefing after active learning
sessions to make the instructional strategies explicit to the teachers. Increasing teacher
subject content knowledge and establishing collegial relationships with the teachers
49
were two additional measures of effective professional development discussed by the
providers.
Wee, Shepardson, Fast and Harbor (2007) investigated if teachers who had
attended professional development training in inquiry science instruction, expanded
their understanding of inquiry, or ability to design inquiry-based lessons through actual
practice in their classrooms. The participants were four purposely-selected teachers who
had participated in a comprehensive professional development program titled Envision
which targeted teachers’ understanding of environmental science concepts, inquiry, and
inquiry teaching. The training consisted of a pre-institute workshop, a four-week
summer institute and an additional workshop during the school year. Data sources
included teacher created lesson files, written teacher responses to open response
prompts, concept maps, and observation reports compiled by an Envision master
teacher. The lesson files were composed of a written narrative describing a lesson and
related artifacts such as assessments, teacher developed materials, laboratory
assignments, and student assignments. The open response prompts probed teacher
understanding of inquiry within the context of classroom pedagogy. Concept maps were
used to examine teacher understanding of inquiry in general. The observations were
conducted using a protocol called the Inquiry Analysis Tool (IAT) and the reports
consisted of field notes and teacher interview data. Data indicated that classroom
implementation added little to the teachers’ understanding of inquiry in general.
Teachers’ understanding of inquiry in the context of classroom pedagogy and ability to
design inquiry lessons was improved after attendance at the summer institute but this
knowledge was not observed in practice.
50
Morrison and Estes (2007) explored teacher perspectives on engaging in
simulations of real world inquiry led by scientists in addition to traditional training on
using new instructional kits. The participants were 47 middle school teachers in
Washington State. The professional development was offered during the summer and
consisted of two days with scientific experts and two days with science educators. The
scientists led the teachers in a problem-based adult learning opportunity on the same
topic as covered by the teaching kits. The science educators led the teachers through the
new curricular materials emphasizing how to use the supplies. Data sources included
pre, post, and delayed post teacher surveys, focus group interviews with seven teachers,
videotaped classroom observations and follow-up interviews with five teachers, the
researcher’s observation log, and feedback from the scientists. In addition to gleaning
teacher perspectives on receiving professional development from real scientists, the
researchers wanted to see if the inquiry methods espoused by the scientists were
incorporated in the teachers’ classrooms. Data indicated that the teachers experienced
frustration when working with the scientists, because the teachers lacked precise content
vocabulary and prior content knowledge; but at the end teachers reported gains in both.
The teachers enjoyed the adult learning opportunity, but did not think that the time
spent on it was warranted. They would have preferred more time to receive practical
information about the new kits. However, at the delayed post survey, teachers reported
that they were glad they had spent two days in adult learning, as the additional subject
content knowledge accrued enabled them to teach the kit lessons with greater depth.
Kahle et al. (2000) investigated the impact of standards based teaching on
African-American urban middle school student achievement. This study was part of a
51
larger study examining changes in teaching and learning in Ohio as a result of
participation in the Systemic School Initiative (SSI). The participants were eight urban
middle school teachers who had received SSI professional development in science
education and their African-American students. The teachers participated in a six-week
summer institute designed to expand teacher subject content knowledge, to experience
modeled inquiry instruction, and to explicitly connect course content to the National
Science Education Standards. During the school year, attendance at six seminars that
stressed standards-based teaching, equity and assessment were required. Data were
collected from teacher, principal and student questionnaires. Students also took the
Discovery Inquiry Test; an assessment modeled after the NAEP assessments to measure
student knowledge. Results indicated that students in the classes of teachers who
attended SSI professional development scored higher on the Discovery Inquiry Test
than students in matched control group classes. Sustained professional development
emphasizing content knowledge and inquiry teaching increased the likelihood that
standards-based instruction actually occurred in classrooms. Students’ gender, attitude
toward science, and perception of peer participation were important predictors of
science achievement. Girls scored higher than the boys and tended to have better
attitudes and perceptions of greater home support.
Czerniak (2007) reported findings of an analysis of student science achievement
records of fourth and sixth grade Ohio students whose teachers participated in the
Toledo Area Partnership in Education: Support Teachers as Resources to Improve
Elementary Science (TAPESTRIES). TAPESTRIES was funded through an Urban
Systemic Initiative grant from the National Science Foundation. Analyses were
52
conducted on Ohio Proficiency exam results for 8,060 fourth and sixth grade students in
Toledo Public Schools and yearly classroom observations. Sixteen trained elementary
support teachers conducted the classroom observations. The TAPESTRIES program
was focused on increasing teacher knowledge and skills to teach standards-based
lessons through: developing a cadre of science support teachers; providing high quality
and sustained professional development; implementing inquiry-based science
curriculum; and aligning curriculum, classroom practice, and assessment to national
standards. Support teachers received a two-week summer institute, two university
courses, a staff retreat and attendance at a spring conference. After training, support
teachers were assigned a cohort of classroom teachers to coach through bi-weekly
lesson studies. In addition to training the support teachers, TAPESTRIES staff hosted a
retreat for principals and two community meetings for disbursing information about the
ongoing teacher training. A newsletter was published in the fall and spring to share
updates regarding teacher science resources and opportunities. A website was
maintained by TAPESTRIES staff to facilitate teacher networking, access to expert
subject content knowledge through a link titled Ask-a-Scientist, and sharing of teacher
resources. Data indicated that Ohio Proficiency Science Test scores improved in Toledo
after TAPESTRIES implementation. Higher levels of implementation yielded higher
test scores. A cumulative effect of having multiple TAPESTRIES teachers was
associated with increased student achievement.
Summary of Professional Development in Science Education
This section reviewed some of the current literature on teacher professional
development models. Specific examples where organized under the Loucks-Horsley et
53
al. (2003) themes: aligning and implementing curriculum; collaborative structure;
examining teaching and learning; immersion experiences; practicing teaching; and
vehicles and mechanisms. In some cases the teacher learning goals were centered on
increasing subject matter knowledge (immersion experiences), others focused on
pedagogical knowledge (aligning and implementing curriculum), and still others were
directed to improving PCK (collaborative structure; examining teaching and learning;
practicing teaching). One set of studies, vehicles and mechanisms, confronted learning
needs for all kinds of knowledge through complex long-term interventions. The next
section will look more closely at one type of program for teacher learning classified
under examining teaching and learning, classroom action research.
Overview of Action Research
Historical accounts credit Kurt Lewin, a social psychologist and German
immigrant with creating the phrase action research to describe the process of generating
corrective actions by reflecting upon problems in practice (Masters, 1995; McTaggart,
1991). Lewin (1948) published an article titled, “Action Research and Minority
Problems” in which he described the process of action research as a cycle of: (a)
problem identification, (b) solution selection, (c) implementation and (d) evaluation of
outcomes. Others before Lewin had promoted reflective inquiry, notably John Dewey
(1960) and employed techniques similar to action research in solving social problems
(Kock, McQueen, & Scott, n.d.; Masters; McTaggart). In the 60 years since its
inception, action research has evolved into different forms to suit the theoretical and
practical needs of the participants (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2003; McKernan, 1996;
McTaggart).
54
Classifications of Action Research
The literature describes multiple classifications of action research each reflective
of varying epistemological positioning and purpose. Some types of action research are
based in critical theory and focus on the emancipation or transformation of participants
laboring under social, political, economic, gender or racial restrictions. Many
educational action research approaches are directed primarily at developing practical
applications rooted in learning theory instead of social-political theories. A few action
research models are quite close to traditional positivist research designs in that they
systematically study the effects of implementing specific strategies in social settings.
Businesses have appropriated other types of action research for training purposes,
internal productivity audits and human relations assessment. Business models rely on
management psychology instead of social-political theory, learning theory, or scientific
rationalism.
The seven types of action research described by Kemmis and McTaggart (2003)
are delineated primarily by theoretical framework and enactment location. Participatory
action research is usually conducted in developing countries and has three attributes that
distinguish it from regular research: (a) shared ownership of research projects, (b)
community-based analysis of social problems, and (c) orientation toward community
action. There is a strong element of emancipation in participatory action research.
Outside leaders work with disenfranchised locals who need assistance in gaining
equitable treatment in economical, political or social institutions. Friere’s (2003)
description of promoting literacy in Brazil and Chile is a good example of participatory
action research. Pedagogy of the Oppressed was written in 1968 by Paulo Freire as an
55
explanation of his work in Brazil educating disenfranchised people. Freire’s book
weaves together multiple theories of philosophy, political activism, and education.
Friere described how teachers literate in the ways of oppression and infused with love
for mankind could serve as guides to the oppressed.
Critical action research is similar to participatory action research in that it shares
a theoretical stance in critical theory, but proponents of critical action research also
strive to be very inclusive of all participants. This type of action research may be
conducted anywhere that groups are marginalized. The goal is to effect social change to
eliminate/equalize the social factors that unfairly discriminate among members of the
community. Consequently, a large network of participants is sought to provide insight
into the problem, suggest remediation and maintain the solutions in practice. LadsonBillings’ (1994) work with teachers of African-American students is a good
representation of critical action research. In The Dreamkeepers, Ladson-Billings
described her work as an ethnographic study, but because the teachers “agreed to
participate in a research collaborative that would analyze and interpret the data and
work together to understand their collective expertise” (p. 145), the work also may be
considered as action research. The goal of the research was to document effective
instructional practices with African-American students. As the teachers reflected about
their own practice, they implemented changes to better suit the needs of their students.
The distinguishing feature of the third classification, classroom action research,
is that it is conducted by teachers, and occurs in K-12 school and university classrooms.
The emphasis of the research is on practical classroom issues such as building
classroom community or how to help a class of children master a specific domain of
56
knowledge. Theories used to guide classroom action research are more likely to be
learning theories rather than critical theories. University personnel often offer expert
assistance in terms of data collection and analysis techniques. They also may assist in
organizing focus groups or professional learning communities for the researching
teachers to discuss and share their findings. van Zee (1998) reported on her facilitation
of classroom action research by both preservice and inservice teachers. This project had
multiple layers of research in that van Zee who is a university assistant professor
examined her practice as an instructor of preservice teachers while simultaneously the
preservice and inservice teachers examined their instructional practices with children.
At both levels, the knowledge sought pertained directly to effective instructional
practice.
Action science is a technique used by businesses and some educational
organizations to uncover the gaps between practical knowledge used by workers and the
theoretical knowledge they are expected to have. It “emphasizes the study of practice in
organizational settings as a source of new understandings and improved practice”
(Kemmis & McTaggart, 2003, p. 342). Frequently outside consultants are employed to
facilitate focus groups, surveys, and other forms of data collection within the
organization. In 2004, this author participated in an action science inquiry into how her
school district was implementing differentiated compensation programs for teachers.
American Product Quality Control (APQC), a consulting agency based in Houston,
Texas, assisted Columbus Public Schools, Denver Public Schools, Douglas County
School District (Colorado), Houston Independent School District, Milwaukee Public
Schools, New Orleans Public Schools, Oakland Unified School District (California),
57
and Wichita Public Schools in a benchmarking project to identify what was currently
being done in terms of differentiated compensation for teachers. Three group meetings
were held once each in Denver, Columbus and Houston. In between the meetings
participants met through conference telephone calls and communicated through email.
APQC’s role was to manage the meetings and communication and help us utilize our
existing resources, both human and material, to fully develop our well-intentioned but
disjointed existing programs. Through APQC’s prompting, Columbus Public Schools
conducted an online survey of teachers to discover their thoughts about the Gainsharing
plan in which school staffs receive bonus pay for exceeding adequate yearly progress
standards. Five focus groups were also conducted around the district to allow teachers
an open forum for sharing their experiences and feelings about the Performance
Advancement System, the district-wide teacher action research program. When it was
Columbus’ turn to host the face-to-face meeting, participants visited ten schools to
allow unscripted discourse regarding the benchmarking project. By the end of the
school year, each school district had developed an action plan detailing current status,
long-term goals and ongoing SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Resultsoriented, and Timely) goals for improving their differentiated compensation programs.
Kemmis and McTaggart (2003) assigned the term action learning to the action
research conducted by large organizations such as hospitals or community service
groups. Typical research questions center on topics such as the fit between the
organization’s mission statement and the actual implementation. An emphasis would be
on identifying and removing barriers to achieving the organization’s goals. Action
learning has been used by businesses to train their managers in implementing company
58
policy and to trouble shoot problems. Townsend and Adams (2004) reported on a
yearlong action research inquiry into a school district’s progress toward developing a
professional learning community. District-wide data were collected through focus
groups, surveys, interviews and document analysis. Participants included teachers,
administrators, custodians, bus drivers, and educational assistants. The researchers
generated a list of 11 recommendations for future action by the school district. Some of
the recommendations suggested areas for review and revision to include the voices of
all stakeholders; others noted areas that were functioning well and should be continued.
The findings of this action research were used to align the school district’s policies and
practices to their goal of becoming a professional learning community.
Kemmis and McTaggart (2003) identified two more action research models
commonly used in business, soft systems approach and industrial. Both of these
approaches are consultant driven and aim to increase efficiency and productivity within
the organization. The soft systems approach draws out the expertise of the workers for
problem solution while the industrial model supplies training from the outside for the
workers. Both models are influenced by organizational psychology and business
management techniques.
The work of German philosopher Jürgen Habermas has also influenced thinking
about action research (McTaggart, 1991). His theory of knowledge-constitutive
interests, suggests that how knowledge is constituted reflects the way it is subsequently
used. Knowledge that is obtained through empirical-analytic means is used for
technical purposes. Knowledge developed through hermeneutic-interpretive strategies
is used for practical applications. Knowledge obtained through critical-political
59
analysis is destined for use in emancipatory causes. The influence on Tripp’s (1990)
action research categories is clear. Tripp characterized three types of classroom action
research: technical, practical and emancipatory. In technical action research, teachers
select an instructional strategy and study how it works in their own classroom. Practical
action research is self-directed and aimed at improvement within day-to-day classroom
functioning. Emancipatory action research is also self-directed but is intended to
identify and rectify social limitations to educational functioning.
McKernan (1996) also identified three broad types of action research that seem
to be influenced by Habermas’ theory of knowledge constitutive interests. Type 1,
scientific-technical, has positivist traits and involves testing a particular intervention
within a specified theoretical construct. Type 2, practical-deliberative, involves
collaboration among participants to define, understand and solve a problem. Type 3,
critical-emancipatory, focuses on designing practical and political action to theoretically
situate and solve an identified problem.
Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1993) have developed an analytical framework for
teacher action research that has two broad categories: empirical and conceptual.
Empirical action research deals directly with the analysis and interpretation of field
collected data. Three types of empirical research are delineated by mode of reflection:
teacher journaling, oral inquiries, and classroom/school studies. Through journal
writing, teachers privately reflect upon the impact of their instructional practices upon
their students. Oral inquiries are a form of collaborative group reflection in which
multiple teachers discuss issues, experiences and meaning related to the outcomes of
instructional practice within their own and each other’s classrooms. Classroom studies
60
can be individual or collaborative, but are based upon data collected through interviews,
observations and documents such as student work. The fourth type of teacher research
is enacted through essay writing and is classified under the heading conceptual research.
In conceptual research, teachers draw upon multiple sources of information to build
persuasive essays about educational research, classroom climate, or other assertions for
which their reflections can supply warrants.
Unique Characteristics of Action Research
The many forms of action research share a number of common elements that
differentiate it from other types of research. Action research has often been envisioned
as a cyclical process in which successive episodes grow ever closer to truth and
successful resolution of the problem (Kock,, et al., n.d.; Lewin, 1948; Masters, 1995;
O’Brien, 1998). McTaggart (1991) made the connection between action research and
the Aristotelian concept of praxis. Praxis is the state of practice being informed by
personal reflection on one’s actions and the outcomes of those actions. The cycle has
been described as having four (Lewin) or five steps (Sussman & Evered, 1978.) The
process involves identifying a problem, planning action to address the problem,
implementing the action, and reflectively assessing the results of the action. O’Brien
stated, “For action researchers, theory informs practice, practice refines theory, in a
continuous transformation. (p.5)” Action research cycles are meant to be responsive
events and in practice frequently are altered mid-cycle as results dictate the need, i.e., if
the action does not help alleviate the problem, the action is changed until it does
(Kemmis & McTaggart, 2003; Kock, et al.; Lewin; Schön, 1983).
61
Personal engagement and collaboration among the participants are other key
elements of action research. The researcher does not provide a treatment to subjects;
rather all parties concerned are considered participants with an equal voice. Masters
(1995) identifies this as empowerment of participants and collaboration through
participation. Winter (1989) stated that action research is characterized as having
collaborative resource and plural structure. Feldman and Atkin (1995) describe action
research as collaborative, focused on own practice, and self-developmental.
The acquisition of knowledge, generated through reflection and discussion
among participants, is the goal of action research (Kock, et al., n.d.; Lewin, 1948;
Masters, 1995; O’Brien, 1998). Winter (1989) identified the concepts of reflective
critique and dialectical critique, which involve participants explicitly stating their
personal situations regarding the problem and resolving the issue through extensive
discussion among peers. Winter further explained that there is a certain amount of risk
in participants being so forthright in inviting public scrutiny of their personal beliefs
and practice.
Accounts of the elements of action research emphasize the strong moral
mandate to act in a conscionable manner and actually implement the knowledge gained.
Masters (1995) stated that social change is the direct result of action research. Kemmis
and McTaggart (2003) stated that participatory action research has an “orientation
toward community action” (p. 337). Feldman and Atkin (1995) described the moral
component inherent in the instructional decisions of teachers. Lewin (1948) went so far
as to say:
62
The research needed for social practice can best be characterized as research for
social management or social engineering. It is a type of action research, a
comparative research on the conditions and effects of various forms of social
action, and research leading to social action. [Italics added] Research that
produces nothing but books will not suffice. (pp. 202-203)
Data Collection and Analysis Methods in Action Research
Data collection methods in action research are selected to provide the data
necessary to answer the research questions. However, the cyclical nature of action
research − identify a problem, collect data, act on the data, re-evaluate the problem,
collect data, over and over, often requires multiple forms of data collection techniques
within the same project. Conventional research methods include observations,
interviews, surveys, questionnaires, audio, and videotaping (Calhoun, 1994; Ferrance,
2000; Meyers & Rust, 2003). Archival data such as student permanent record files
including grades, attendance, referrals, standardized test scores, and awards/honors
provide valuable baseline information (Calhoun; Ferrance). Student generated artifacts
such as writing samples, portfolio entries, projects, or journals have been suggested as
well (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993; Hubbard & Power, 1993; Meyers & Rust). Less
commonly used techniques are classroom maps, photographs, student sketch journals,
and sociograms (Ernst, 1997; Hubbard & Power).
Data analysis technique tends toward interpretive methods such as discourse
analysis, oral processing, document analysis, and reflection journals (Cochran-Smith &
Lytle, 1993; Kemmis & McTaggart, 2003). To increase the trustworthiness of the
findings, action researchers often engage in triangulation of the data to support
conclusions with multiple views. The criteria for establishing trustworthiness are (a)
credibility, (b) transferability, and (c) dependability as explained in a (d) reflexive
63
journal (Lather, 2001). These criteria are supported through prolonged engagement and
persistent observation. Having a robust data corpus, an impeccable audit trail, and clear
writing also enhance the trustworthiness of the research conclusions.
Situating Action Research in General Research
Inquiry paradigms can be differentiated one from another through determining
the intended purpose of the research and examining the ontology, epistemology and
methodology of the approach. Researchers have suggested four main purposes for
research: prediction, understanding, emancipation and deconstruction (Lather & St.
Pierre, 2005). In the descriptions that follow and in Table 2.3, the purposes are
compared in terms of whole-to-part relationships.
Typically, research conducted to predict an outcome has a positivistic stance yet
may use a wide variety of methods to collect and analyze data. A key difference from
the other purposes is found in the ontology; positivists believe there is only one reality
and it is accessible to everyone through sensory experience. Discovering this whole
from examining the pieces of evidence is the goal of a positivist researcher. The
epistemology of the positivist proclaims that knowledge exists outside of the human
mind and power is obtained through collecting the most knowledge. There are
prescribed methods for obtaining correct knowledge; violations of the methods result in
incorrect information. Methodology includes the techniques of observation, interview,
planned treatments, and measured variables. An important part of the research design is
a thorough review of previous knowledge and theory surrounding the subject of interest.
Using this knowledge, a hypothesis is put forth and an inviolate plan is devised to test
the hypothesis. Data analysis is usually done mathematically and conclusions are based
64
on statistical significance. The researcher maintains a professional distance from the
subjects/objects of study to avoid introducing threats to validity; in the best studies, the
subjects are drawn randomly from a population and furthermore randomly assigned to
treatment. If the results are deemed significant, conclusions are generalized back to the
entire population. The researcher’s purpose is to find “truth” in controlled situations so
that knowledge is advanced for everyone. Action research conducted from a positivist
stance is likely to be funded and or facilitated from a large organization.
Research focused on understanding is interpretive in its posture and may employ
naturalistic or ethnographic forms of data collection, but is theoretically based in
constructivism. Constructivism might be considered the opposite of deconstructivism in
that constructivism is based on collecting pieces of data and transforming them into
understandable wholes. However, the ontology of a constructivist would support the
existence of multiple realities, all equally valid, unlike the positivist. The epistemology
of a constructivist would buttress the belief that individuals create reality through
uniquely lived circumstances. Power is created through understanding the entire
constellation of factors present in the environment. Methodology for a constructivist
might include observation, interviews, manipulation of objects, analysis of social
customs, discerning purpose of behavior, or participant-observation. An overarching
theme in constructivism is an emergent research design in which the researcher is
closely engaged with the subjects of study. The subjects and population are considered
simultaneously. Research conclusions may be reached through consensus with the
subjects. Many forms of action research could be located in this quadrant of the
research paradigms.
65
Critical-emancipatory purposed research is similar to constructivism in that the
ontology dictates a belief in multiple realities, but a practitioner of a criticalemancipatory stance views differential power among the realities. In this view, pieces of
reality are constructed into different wholes, but the wholes are not of equal social
standing. Emancipatory research is epistemologically based in critical theory such as
gender, race, or political and often utilizes participatory action research to achieve
results. This epistemological view claims that the value or power of knowledge is
measured in terms of how it enhances political or social influence. Different ways of
knowing privilege some people above others. Dominant social groups are charged with
actively promoting their view of reality while suppressing everyone else’s. Unjust social
structures are viewed as intact wholes that must be disabled into constituent pieces to
fairly redistribute the social power. The methodology is conducted primarily through
language, both oral (dialogic and interview) and written (text analysis). The researcher
is highly engaged with the subjects of study and considers the general population
simultaneously. The overall purpose of the researcher is very much guided by a desire
for emancipation, conclusions are meant to promote social change. For many action
researchers, critical-emancipatory is the only true way to conduct action research.
Deconstructivist research can be characterized as aggressively disarticulating
existing realities (wholes) into constitutive parts. Research grounded in
deconstructivism relies on post structural, postmodern and similar worldview theories.
The ontological beliefs of deconstructionists are driven by incertitude in that all
concepts, beliefs and social structures may be based upon falsehoods or truths, yet the
way to determine truth is unknown. The epistemological position of deconstructionists
66
substantiates their claim that knowledge is only found within a power network, which
means that all knowledge is dangerous, i.e. capable of causing harm if used on someone
who is outside of the network. Methodology in deconstructivism is unique unto
practitioners, as each must struggle to express their inquiry in a meaningful yet nonabusive manner. Deconstructionist researchers conduct their inquiry removed from the
subjects or objects of study and deliberately avoid connecting the results of their inquiry
to the population at large making it unsuitable for most kinds of action research.
Inquiry Paradigm
Purpose of Research
Forms of Action Research
Positivism
Predict
Action Science
(Parts to one whole)
Soft Systems Approach
Industrial
Constructivism
Critical
Post modern
Understand
Classroom Action Research
(Parts to multiple wholes)
Action Learning
Emancipate
Participatory Action Research
(Some wholes to parts)
Critical Action Research
Deconstruction
Elements of deconstructivism
may appear in any form of
action research.
(Wholes to parts)
Note. Paradigms are modeled after Lather & St. Pierre, 2005. Forms of action research
are from Kemmis & McTaggart, 2003.
Table 2.3. Situating Action Research in Inquiry Paradigms by Purpose of Research
Rationale for Classroom Action Research in Science Education
In his lecture at the 1986 NSTA annual meeting, Hurd (1986) addressed ways
research in science education can serve teachers better and improve student learning.
67
Among the points he raised was the need for research in science education to adopt a
new integrative model encompassing qualitative as well as quantitative elements. He
suggested “a model derived from ecology which recognizes complexities and assumes
broad patterns of interactive behavior such as would be characteristic of a teacher and
students in a learning situation” (Hurd, p. 3). While Hurd did not use the phrase teacher
action research, he called for the inclusion of teachers as full partners in science
education research. Without the perspective of practitioners, research on instruction,
curriculum, and learning becomes little more than “an interesting exercise” (p. 3).
Duckworth (1987) recounted her technique of teaching preservice teachers to
engage in teaching as research. At the core of her method was assigning students a
natural phenomenon to observe such as phases of the moon or the motion of a
pendulum and observing how the students made sense out of their inquiry. In the
current science education vernacular, this would be labeled as teaching through inquiry
(Llewellyn, 2002), but Duckworth called it arranging an occasion for the “having of
wonderful ideas” (p. 13). Wonderful ideas are novice-generated stepping-stones toward
the accepted understanding of scientific concepts. Teachers as well as school children
benefit from having wonderful ideas. When the natural phenomena teachers observe are
children, the teachers may get wonderful ideas about how to improve their instructional
practice. It might be inferred that teachers working in this manner are engaged in a form
classroom action research if they are systematically and critically involved. Duckworth
advocated a form of embedded practitioner research similar to the format espoused by
Feldman and Minstrell (2000).
68
I am not proposing that schoolteachers single-handedly become published
researchers in the development of human learning. Rather, I am proposing that
teaching, understood as engaging learners in phenomena and working to
understand the sense they are making, might be the sine qua non of such
research. (Duckworth, p. 140)
Feldman (1994) called for a new conception of validity in science education
research- validity through practical testing.
In order for teacher-research to be effective- for science teachers to come to
better understandings of their educational situations through it, and for practice
to improve- a radically different conception of what counts as research must be
accepted. It is a conception that fits into what science teachers already do- the
monitoring and adjusting of good practice. (p. 99)
Feldman explained that educational research must be embedded in the daily practice of
teachers if it is to have multiple forms of validity: construct, face, and catalytic.
Construct validity refers to the manner in which a theory or research conclusion is
reached. Face validity represents the common sense factor, does the research appear to
be practical. Catalytic validity implies that it is possible to take action based upon the
results. Because insiders, and by this Feldman meant teachers, who intimately know the
students, local community mores, and school district expectations, have tempered the
outcomes of classroom action research in actual practice, educators can feel confidence
in the results. Feldman further asserted that classroom action research is interpretive
work and not meant to produce outcomes suitable for broad generalization. What can be
generalized is the process for fact-finding, e.g., strategies for engaging in action
research in a science classroom. The results of action research are primarily for the use
of the practitioner who garnered them from systematic and critical inquiry in their own
classroom.
69
Tillotson (2000) reported that science teachers, like many other types of
teachers, do not value educational research because much of it does not translate well
into classroom practice. Some science teachers have opted to enact classroom action
research because of its much greater face validity and accessibility to practical
outcomes. Tillotson described two forms of action research, reflective and problem
solving. When using the reflective form, teachers gather a variety of data throughout the
school year to evaluate the effectiveness of their instructional practice. In the problem
solving form, teachers follow a five-step action research cycle attributed to Sagor
(2000): (a) identification of a problem, (b) collection of data that have a bearing on the
solving the problem from at least three different sources, (c) analysis of the data, (d)
reporting of the findings to the school community who also may have a vested interest
in the outcome, and (e) development of an action plan to implement the findings.
According to Tillotson, the success of classroom action research in improving science
teachers’ practice is influenced by the degree to which teachers are committed to
changing the status quo, have a clear plan for implementing changes based on the data,
and collaborate in small active teams.
Classroom Action Research in Science Education
Science education has embraced classroom action research as a viable means to
improve practice through inquiry and reflection. Many important research questions in
science education have been investigated through classroom action research. Studies
reviewed for this paper were found at all educational levels− elementary school, middle
school, high school and university methods courses for preservice teachers and
inservice training classes for practicing teachers. In each of these studies, researchers
70
identified a question about effective science education practice, planned an intervention,
implemented the action and evaluated the success of the action through collaborative
reflection before refining the query and repeating the cycle. The studies reviewed
represent a variety of action research paradigms. Since questions and reflections
frequently occurred on multiple levels within the same study, it was difficult to
precisely classify individual studies as one type of action research or another. For
example, in the cases of some university and school administrative personnel
facilitating preservice and/or practicing teachers, the facilitators seemed to fit one
category such as scientific-technical (Larson, Mayer, Kight, & Golson, 1998) or
critical-emancipatory (Goodnough, 2003) while the classroom teachers clearly directed
their efforts toward more practical-deliberative outcomes. Abell (2005) noted multiple
purposes within the three studies she reported, “multiple purposes lead to multiple
actions. However, multiple purposes may also create conflicts related to ownership,
action and quality” (p. 291). Noffke (1997) also noted different layers of purpose in
action research, “the professional, the personal and the political” (p. 75) that have
potential to either enrich or cause conflict in the process. Many of the university-based
researchers, who worked with classroom teachers, referenced Elliott’s (1991) concept of
first and second order action research. First order research is what the classroom
teachers engaged in, working directly with their own students. The university
researchers who researched the researching teachers conducted second order action
research.
Regardless of the level from which the researchers operated, each was seeking
information on which to act to complete the cycle of action research. Shulman’s (1987)
71
three kinds of knowledge can be used to frame the knowledge sought in classroom
action research projects: subject content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and
pedagogical content knowledge. Subject content knowledge refers to the subject matter,
the essential concepts that comprise the domain to be mastered. Pedagogical
knowledge encompasses cognizance of how the content is organized, what instructional
materials are prescribed and expected learning outcomes. Pedagogical content
knowledge (PCK) links the previous two knowledge types with teaching acumen; it
involves knowing how to teach the content so others can comprehend it. PCK also
includes comprehension of the misconceptions and difficulties students are likely to
experience during instruction. Because classroom action research has an emergent
evolving element, researchers cannot explicitly anticipate the answers that they will
find. However, the type of knowledge sought by the researchers will organize the
following discussion.
Science Action Research Studies Focused on Content Knowledge
Akerson and Abd-El-Khalick (2003) worked with a fourth grade teacher to help
her teach the nature of science (NOS) explicitly on a consistent basis. Three aspects of
NOS were selected for emphasis: the inferential, the tentative and the creative. It was
found that although the classroom teacher had tacit knowledge of NOS acquired
through university coursework and expressed intentionally to teach NOS, she needed
explicit guidance to transfer the knowledge into her classroom teaching. The teacher
lacked more than pedagogical content knowledge, she also needed to increase the
robustness of her understanding of the NOS. The researchers provided support through
“face-to-face or electronically mediated lesson debriefings, researcher or teacher
72
initiated questions, clarifications, reflections, and self-critiques, and researcherdelivered model lessons” (p. 1037). These supports for clarifying the meaning of NOS
for the classroom teacher were classified into three broad areas, activating the teacher’s
tacit knowledge of NOS, providing content specific examples of NOS applications, and
direct modeling of lessons by the researcher with the teacher’s students. The emergent
quality of the scaffolding provided to the teacher mirrored the social constructivist
learning construct, the zone of proximal development. By the conclusion of the study,
the teacher had progressed in the consistency of her explicit instruction of NOS, but still
had room for additional improvement.
Al-Qura’n et al. (2001) collaborated with five preservice teachers and one
practicing teacher to develop and teach an integrated geology unit for sixth grade
students. The first order action research conducted by the teachers involved revising a
traditionally didactic geology unit to reflect a student-centered view while also
including community, and additional content area goals. The teachers planned and
revised the unit while field-testing their ideas in classrooms. The university researcher’s
second order action research focused on revising the teacher training curriculum to
include inquiry teaching as a means of facilitating the generation of content and skill
knowledge in the teachers. Data were collected through audio taped teacher interviews,
videotaped teaching sessions, teacher/researcher diaries, student worksheets, lesson
plans, and student examinations. The university researcher conducted document
analyses on the print sources and presented the findings to the teachers. Oral inquiry
sessions were held following teaching sessions during which participants viewed the
videotapes, discussed the document analyses data and planned revisions to their
73
teaching strategies. Implementing an inquiry approach to curriculum planning proved
successful in increasing teacher knowledge and skills and student engagement. The
university researcher gained knowledge and experience in facilitating inquiry teaching.
Cavicchi, Hughes-McDonnell, and Lucht (2001) engaged in collaborative action
research on their own practice of using open inquiry to facilitate practicing science
teachers learning about light and shadow. Five workshops were held in which teachers
had opportunities to engage in playful inquiry activities focused on light and shadow. In
planning the environment for exploration, the researchers experimented with everyday
materials themselves to become aware of limitations that could be resolved such as
having light sources that moved, having the capacity to totally darken the space, and
selection of objects for manipulation based upon translucency. Each workshop was
initiated with a question meant to evoke exploration with the materials in terms of light
and shadow, but was not meant to guide the teachers toward a specific outcome. The
researchers used Socratic type questioning to encourage the teachers’ meaning making
and to promote additional inquiry. The goal was to not only increase content
knowledge, but to model open inquiry techniques for teachers to employ in their own
classrooms. The researchers concluded that influential factors in conducting successful
open inquiry sessions with teachers included: (a) having a wide array of materials for
exploration, (b) having adequate space, (c) encouragement through questioning, and (d)
allowing variation in the form of teacher reflection. The influence of standardized
testing and the resultant expectations of teachers and students were found to have a
limiting effect on successful open inquiry explorations.
74
Valanides, Nicolaidou, and Eilks (2003) explored grade 12 students’
conceptions of oxidation and combustion. Through teacher administered pre − and post
− experiment interviews, the researchers discovered that students’ thinking seemed to
be dominated by their perceptions. Even students who had an academic history of high
success relied on memorized facts and held a very thin depth of conceptual
understanding about oxidation and combustion. The researchers postulated that
teachers contribute to student misconception by failing to differentiate between
observable macroscopic evidence and microscopic chemical changes. Furthermore, the
symbolic notation typically used in chemistry does not differentiate between the two
layers. The researchers recommended that teachers engage in action research to
determine student prior conceptions before and during instruction to align instruction
with student needs.
Science Action Research Studies Focused on Pedagogical Knowledge
Berlin (1996) reported on a 5-year study of the Berlin-White Action Research
Model (BWARM) with public school teachers. The BWARM project involved teachers
in classroom action research while receiving professional development from the
university through planned coursework and regular oral inquiry research seminars. The
first order teacher researchers investigated implementation of innovative curriculum and
teaching pedagogy in their own classrooms. Some of the topics were: “Using Student
Scientist Interactions to Improve Attitudes Toward Science and Science Related
Careers” and “Using Computer Environmental Simulations to Enhance Student
Decision Making” (Berlin). The second order university researchers examined their
efforts in improving “the structures and social conditions of practice” (p.5). Some of
75
the findings of the university researchers were that the BWARM model: increased
teacher participation in leadership roles; enhanced teacher attitudes toward innovation
and educational research; improved teacher use of reflection and classroom innovation;
and stimulated vertical and horizontal collaboration among school buildings, district
and institutions.
Roth and Lee (2004) studied three classes of seventh-grade science students and
their teachers guided through a project-based study of stream restoration by two
participant-researchers interested in scientific literacy from a critical-emancipatory
outlook. The goals were to embed school curriculum within the community to achieve
authentic teaching and learning opportunities. Authenticity and multiple viewpoints
were used to engage all students in learning and generating science knowledge,
particularly those who typically spurned school science. Data for this 3-year study were
collected through audio and videotaped instructional sessions, field notes, public media
coverage, and professional literature produced by an interested environmental group.
Results indicated that the students made genuine contributions to the knowledge base of
community stream restoration. Data generated by the students were valued by
themselves and also by the community. Students engaged in alternate ways with the
project and gained inquiry skills similar to those taught in traditional science lessons.
The researchers further concluded that the lines between school learning and
community relevance were blurred by this project.
Lewis (2004) wrote about a project to build a working theoretical model of
participatory environmental educational pedagogy. The setting was an alternative high
school in New York City at which an experimental program Project Grow was created
76
to engage students and teachers in project-based learning. The goal was to imbue
students and staff with an environmental sense of community accountability while
developing marketable skills and academic potential in the students. The challenge of
the program was to specify expected learning outcomes in light of content standards,
testing, and stamina of the teachers. Large amounts of teacher personal time and
physical effort were necessary to launch and maintain the Project Grow program.
Through interviews, informal conversations, and document analysis, the researcher
determined that triumphs in student achievement were not necessarily tied to testing and
that curricular challenges remained to be resolved.
Gayford (2002) described a year-long oral inquiry into 17 high school teachers
investigating the meaning of a new environmental literacy curriculum. To facilitate full
participation by all members, three groups were formed. Groups met independently of
each other throughout the school year, but did convene together once at the beginning to
set the parameters of their work and once at the end to generate a consensus statement.
The topics for discussion at each meeting varied, but some of the common ones
addressed the concern that the science curriculum was already too broad and the content
that needed to be taught in an environmental literacy course did not fall exclusively
within the bounds of science. Teachers were reluctant to accept the role of delivering
information perceived as indoctrination to students especially concerning controversial
issues, which precipitated discussions into the nature of science. In the end, a consensus
statement was composed describing what environmental literacy was, its purpose, and
role within the community. The teachers concluded that elements of environmental
literacy could be included in their present curricular areas.
77
Science Action Research Studies Focused on Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Larson et al. (1998) collaborated with school administrators at a Department of
Defense School located in Japan who were desirous of reducing the science
achievement gap among students in the building and improving the validity of researchbased practice in the eyes of the teachers. They devised a plan of having individual
classroom teachers conduct action research inquiry regarding their own science
instructional practice. Support was provided to teachers through several all-day training
sessions covering action research methods, constructivist teaching principles, and an
analysis of student achievement gaps as evidenced by the school’s standardized test
scores. Throughout the project, teachers communicated with a facilitator through email
and telephone. Informal meetings occurred at school among the teacher researchers.
The school administrators’ focus was on the use of teacher action research (second
order action research project) for academic improvement as measured by standardized
tests scores. The foci were varied for the first order teachers’ projects (student use of
information resources, developing critical thinking, increasing frequency of science
instruction, etc.) but specifically designed to meet the practical needs of particular
teachers and children. The results reported for two teacher projects dealt with
employing writing-to-learn to increase science content knowledge. Results of all
classroom teachers’ work were shared at a year-end conference. It was concluded that
teachers increased their understanding of formal research techniques and were able to
bridge the research-practice gap by generating their own data. The data collected
improved the teachers’ practice but due to a reluctance to address social-political issues
78
in student learning, no conclusions were reached regarding closing the achievement
gaps.
Goodnough (2003) engaged in critical self-reflection regarding her role as
facilitator with an action research group while the teacher participants examined the use
of multiple intelligence theory to teach science. Four practicing teachers (2 elementary
schools, 1 middle school and 1 high school) and the facilitator met weekly to share and
reflect upon instructional experiences. The facilitator described her actions:
By assuming a multiplicity of roles throughout the project, by shifting roles to
meet changing circumstances and needs, and by assuming several roles
simultaneously, I was able to foster collaboration within the AR group and to
provide optimal support to the research participants at various stages of the
project (p.48).
The teacher participants, however, were consumed with adapting traditional science
lessons to allow student participation using all of the multiple intelligences. On the
Kemmis and McTaggart (2003) classification scale, the facilitator was engaged in
participatory action research while the teachers were following a classroom action
research form. Results indicated that the classroom teacher participants gained science
content knowledge as well as science pedagogical knowledge. The teachers also
increased their confidence to teach the science curriculum and developed expertise in
engaging in action research.
Two of the studies reviewed for pedagogical content knowledge were situated
within the critical-emancipatory framework of action research. Nyhof-Young (2000),
reported a study in which a university instructor and 6 science teachers enrolled in an
action research course, explored gender equitable practice in science and technology
79
education. Participants dealt with contentious views in their personal practice as well as
within the action research group. The facilitator commented:
Practitioners of action research need to be very aware of the contexts (political,
social and economic) in which their groups operate and in which their
participants practice. Tensions and resonances [sic] among the personal and
professional contexts of participants and the structural context (e.g., the
established roles, beliefs and norms of the educational system) will impact on
and shape a group, often in unexpected ways, from its earliest stages. (pp. 475476)
Results indicated that group dynamics could quickly derail an action research group. A
recommendation was made for participants to keep discussions on topic and
constructive, in order to make progress toward resolving the research questions. It was
also concluded that group facilitators should engage in a self-study of their role as
facilitator.
Capobianco, Lincoln, Canual-Browne, and Trimarchi (2006) investigated how
issues of equity and diversity are addressed in high school science classrooms.
The theoretical framework for this study was feminist critical-emancipatory. The
framework and operations of this collaborative were not prescribed by districtbased guidelines nor were they facilitated by administrators, educational
consultants, or science curriculum experts who direct what teachers must do in
order to comply with standards for professional development. (p.63)
Eleven teachers were listed as participants, but data were only reported for three female
teachers. Participants met after school in each other’s homes for dinner and
conversation approximately every 3 weeks during the school year. Oral inquiry
(Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993) discussions centered on research studies related to
feminist theories and application of feminist theories to science classroom work. The
first order researchers also recorded their thoughts in journals and developed personal
classroom inquiry projects to implement their thinking. The second order university
80
researcher studied the teachers through classroom observations, semi-structured
interviews, and individual consultation sessions. Through the process of shared inquiry,
the teachers became empowered to become producers of knowledge instead of merely
consumers. The university researcher concluded that teacher researchers need the
support and challenges of working a collaborative group, the freedom to ask their own
questions, establish routines, and question methodologies to profit from teaching
through inquiry.
Rice and Roychoudhury (2003) explored techniques for teaching a university
methods class with the intent of increasing preservice teachers confidence to teach
science because increased teacher efficacy has been shown to positively impact teacher
effectiveness. The methods course instructor engaged in a critical self-awareness study
of recurrent cycles of observation, reflection, and action. Data were collected through
videotaping, instructor’s class notes, semi-structured student interviews, and course
evaluations. Participants included 53 elementary education students enrolled in a
science methods class, 1 graduate student who served as a participant observer, and the
methods course instructor. A second methods course instructor assisted in the data
analysis. Techniques found to have a positive impact on the preservice teachers’
attitudes towards teaching science included: modeling the learning cycle and other
instructional strategies; creating a safe, noncompetitive learning environment; reduced
authoritarian mandates; and modeling enthusiasm for science and science teaching.
Abell (2005) reported on three similar self-awareness studies by university
science instructors who taught preservice teachers. The research was directed at
investigating the similarities and differences among science educators’ use of reflective
81
inquiry to improve their teaching. The first order researchers collected data through
student interviews, instructor’s journal, student artifacts, field notes, course evaluations,
and participant observations. Because the questions were different in each study, the
outcomes and actions were also different. The biology instructor regularly assigned her
students to write in a journal with the intention that they were writing-to-learn.
However, her students viewed the writing assignments as unnecessary duplication of
other preparation work, so the instructor changed her expectations for the writing
assignments. In the Physics for Teachers course, the instructor taught the class using
student inquiry methods, but discovered a certain amount of apprehension regarding
course expectations. As a result, he planned a study group with his graduate teaching
assistant to closely review assignments and expected outcomes. The science methods
instructor discovered that her teaching of the NOS was not as explicit as she had hoped,
so changes were planned for the next class of preservice teachers. In each case, the
university teacher altered their instruction in response to the data collected.
van Zee (1998) and van Zee, Lay and Roberts, (2003) were interested in
increasing the competence and confidence of preservice teachers to teach science. They
devised a collaborative system of placing preservice science teachers with practicing
science teachers for the purpose of teaching and learning science instructional methods
in an authentic situation. In addition, a Science Inquiry Group (SING) composed of
practicing teachers, who were graduates of the university instructor’s inquiry methods
class, and the current preservice teachers in the methods class was employed as a means
of supporting and sharing action research projects. By involving preservice teachers in
82
inquiry learning in a supportive environment, the university instructor was able to
increase preservice teacher efficacy and confidence to teach science.
Van Tassell (2001), a primary grade classroom teacher, detailed her own
research into the use of student-generated questions in classroom instruction. A
differentiation was made between ordinary questions that teachers ask when they
already know the answer and real questions that students ask when they do not know
the answer, but want to know the answer. Promoting classroom discourse was a key
feature in this action research study. Data were generated through student learning logs,
transcriptions of classroom lessons and teacher journals. Results indicated that when
classroom work centered on real student questions, everyone was more engaged.
Furthermore, it was concluded that second graders needed substantial modeling in
developing questions suitable for inquiry. Building content background knowledge
assisted students in crafting inquiry questions that were empirically testable with the
resources available to them. Connections were made to sociocultural learning theory in
terms of learning as a social activity; the more the class questioned, explored and
discussed together, the deeper their conceptual knowledge became. Support for this
teacher-initiated research was provided through oral inquiry with a group of teachers
and university researchers, Developing Inquiring Communities in Education Project
(DICEP).
Goodnough (2004) formed a group Teachers Researching Inquiry-Based
Science (TRIBS) that worked together for one school year to improve science teaching
and learning. Classroom action research was used to provide a structure for this
professional development. The group was composed of 4 elementary teachers, 1 science
83
mentor teacher, and 1 science coordinator. About once a month, the TRIBS met and
discussed topics germane to elementary science education such as constructivism and
instructional techniques that support inquiry learning. Teachers developed a personal
research question to pursue in their classroom while the university researcher and
mentor teacher conducted a second order action research project of studying the
teachers learning pedagogical content knowledge through inquiry. The conclusions
were that school districts and universities can profit through professional development
partnerships but it is important that each side be able to achieve individual goals in
addition to the joint goals.
Zembylas and Isenbarger (2002) reported about a classroom teacher’s yearlong
classroom action project to explore techniques for including students identified as
having special learning needs into her science lessons. Data were gathered from the
teacher’s plan book and journal, student science notebooks and other artifacts, class
notes, and audio recordings of classroom discussions. The teacher relied on
sociocultural learning theory to explain how she made formerly isolated students bloom
intellectually and socially. A key feature of her technique was to focus on the strengths
and talents of each student instead of operating from a deficit model. She also
emphasized the need to maintain caring relationships with the students to enable them
to become risk takers and full participants in the classroom community.
Justi and van Driel (2005) reported another case study of one teacher’s
classroom action research. Like many other similar projects, the purpose of this dual
layer action research was to involve the teacher in embedded professional development.
In this project, the teacher, a new chemistry instructor, investigated the effects of
84
teaching with models on student comprehension. The second order action research of
the university instructors was to document growth in teacher pedagogical content
knowledge. “By experimenting with teaching activities the participants are familiar
with, and by documenting and investigating how these activities work out in practice,
beginning teachers may develop their practical knowledge of specific domains” (p.198).
Requiring students to create and explain a concept using a model revealed that their
level of conceptual understanding was not as complete as the classroom teacher
thought. The combination of university-based coursework and the opportunity to test
new ideas in practice was very successful in increasing the teacher’s knowledge in
content, curriculum, and pedagogical content knowledge.
Digital photographs, another form of representation, were highlighted in a
teacher classroom action research project by Schiller and Tillet (2004). The research
question dealt with how information and communication technology can augment
young children’s awareness and representation of their school environment. This study
was not specifically about science action research, but it is included here because
observation and communication are essential science process skills. Even though the
students in this study were only 7 and 8-years-old, they became very skilled in the
generation of digital photographs and using electronic editing software. The classroom
teacher learned the necessary technology skills as student needs dictated. Through
engaging in oral inquiry with her students and giving paper and pencil surveys, the
teacher collected data on the successes and continuing challenges of shepherding a
primary grade classroom to become fluent in digital communication. In light of Justi
and van Driel’s (2005) study about constructing models and Valanides et al. (2003)
85
study about students’ misconceptions among macroscopic, microscopic and symbolic
representation, specifically teaching students to use digital photography for concept
building in elementary school seems relevant in the study of science education
methodology.
Summary of Action Research in Science Education
Many of the big questions in science education were researched in these few
practitioner-generated studies. Cavicchi et al. (2001) modeled the use of open inquiry to
enable personal discovery of concepts related to light and shadow. Key factors that
emerged in using open inquiry effectively were: how materials are displayed, teacher
questioning techniques, having adequate space, allowing for differentiated student
response formats, having student/teacher expectations aligned, and accounting for the
influences of standardized testing.
The value of integrated curriculum was addressed in the Al-Qura’n et al. (2001)
study about teachers collaboratively writing and teaching a unit on geology within a
predominately didactic educational culture. Participants concluded that integrated
curriculum improved student and teacher engagement while facilitating a deeper
understanding of the science content. Roth and Lee (2004) also explored integrating
curriculum through encouraging self-selected modes of student contribution to the
stream restoration project. Students chose diverse means of contributing by generating
written products, conducting interviews, collecting scientific data with instruments,
documenting progress through photography, and more.
The use of multiple forms of representation was investigated by several
researchers. Application of multiple intelligence theory to science education was
86
explored in the study reported by Goodnough (2003). Through researching the
connections between multiple learning modes, participants gained content knowledge,
pedagogy knowledge, confidence, and expertise in reflectively examining personal
practice. The benefits of using models to enhance conceptual change were discussed in
Justi and van Driel (2005) and extending student conceptions of structure through
digital photographing by Schiller and Tillett (2004).
Inclusion, in terms of accommodating special needs students in regular
classroom activities, was addressed by Zembylas and Isenbarger (2002) and also Roth
and Lee (2004). Capobianco et al. (2006) and Nyhof-Young (2000) studied gender
equity through oral inquiry. Participants in both studies probed their personal and
professional beliefs about gender equity in science education in an attempt to change
their practice to reflect more positive and inclusive views. Nyhof-Young participants
discovered that group dynamics could be disruptive to the research endeavor if power
imbalances are allowed to go unchecked. Capobianco et al. found that teacher
participants became empowered to become producers instead of merely consumers of
knowledge.
In the research reported by Larson et al. (1998) classroom teachers empirically
confirmed important elements of conceptual change theory by encouraging children to
develop concept summaries of science experiences. The first grade teachers worked at
helping their students formulate and state in their own words explanations of why or
how phenomena occurred. The teachers discovered the value of isolating and
challenging their students’ misconceptions through repeated work with the same
concepts, pushing the students ever closer to accurate scientific understanding.
87
Valanides et al. (2003) also made discoveries about promoting student conceptual
change in oxidation and combustion. They identified a source of student conceptual
confusions in mixed representations during instruction. When macroscopic (perceptual)
information does not map onto microscopic (non-observable) chemical changes and the
process is recorded using symbolic representations that ignore the mismatch, then
students struggle to develop true conceptual knowledge.
Van Tassell (2001) investigated teaching second grade science through student
generated questions. It was discovered that students need assistance in formulating
testable questions, but that pursuing genuine student questions was worth the time and
effort because it led to deeper understanding of content. Van Tassell also worked
through the dilemma of allowing students to explore their own questions despite the
teacher’s need to address standards based curriculum requirements. The value of
standards was evidenced the second year when the students required extensive teacher
modeling in inquiry skills and content before they had sufficient background knowledge
to ask and investigate testable questions. In helping students translate experience into
valid science concepts, Van Tassell found that young children often take a circuitous
route to scientific understanding that requires patience and persistence on the teacher’s
part.
Akerson and Abd-El-Khalick (2003) addressed the issue of explicitly teaching
the nature of science to fourth graders. Their collaboration with the fourth grade teacher
revealed that the teacher needed to be reminded of the connections between content and
the nature of science and that expert modeling was useful for the teacher’s
88
enlightenment. One of the practitioner studies reported by Abell (2005) also addressed
explicitly teaching NOS, but the students were preservice teachers not children.
Project-Based Learning was featured in the study by Roth and Lee (2004) in
which middle school students and teachers learned how to contribute academic
expertise to a large community-based stream restoration project. Participants were
empowered to find their own authentic methods and reasons for working with/for the
restoration such as making video documentaries, sampling the water, conducting specie
counts, creating flyers, presenting at informational meetings, etc. Through the Roth and
Lee study, participants also experienced multicultural perspectives on the natural world
because community advice was solicited from the First People Aboriginal group. A byproduct of most of these studies was that teachers increased their science content
knowledge as well as their students and gained an appreciation of socially constructed
knowledge.
Many of the studies dealt with teacher training for both preservice teachers and
as professional development for inservice teachers. Frequent goals were to increase
teacher competence and confidence to teach science (Abell, 2005; Akerson & Abd-elKhalick, 2003; Berlin, 1996; Goodnough, 2004; Lewis, 2004; Rice & Roychoudhury,
2003; van Zee, 1998; van Zee et al., 2003.) Some were designed to increase teacher
content knowledge (Akerson & Abd-El-Khalick; Al-Qura’n et al., 2001; Cavicchi et al.,
2001; Valanides et al., 2003). Others were designed to be self-studies directed at
improved practice (Abell; Rice & Rouchoudhury; Van Tassell, 2001; Zembylas &
Isenbarger, 2002).
89
Chapter Summary
This review of the literature has covered three broad areas: a theoretical
framework for viewing teachers as learners, models of professional development for
teaching science teachers, and the application of classroom action research as
professional development. The purpose of the review was to build a case for the
efficacy of utilizing classroom action research to improve science teacher skills and
knowledge in order that the teachers may in turn affect improved student achievement
in science. However, very few of the studies reviewed addressed student achievement.
Most studies of science professional development centered on increasing teacher
knowledge or confidence to teach science. Two notable exceptions were Kahle et al.
(2000) and Czerniak (2007) who both measured student achievement in relation to
teacher professional development. The same focus on teacher learning was found in the
science classroom action research studies reviewed. The only classroom action research
study that mentioned student achievement as a research question was Larson et al.
(1998), but the researcher reported that insufficient data obstructed conclusions about
student achievement outcomes.
Therefore, the present study was enacted to explore connections between student
achievement and classroom action research as a form of professional development.
90
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
After an overview, this chapter will identify the: (a) participants, (b) context, (c)
research design, (d) data sources, and (e) data analysis procedures. This chapter will
also explain how the data sources and analyses were used to address the research
questions introduced in Chapter One. Finally, limitations and trustworthiness of the
study will be discussed. This research compiled descriptive data sets of teacher
participation and student achievement for teachers who were enrolled in an urban
district wide classroom action research program. Three years of data records pertaining
to teacher participation in the Performance Advancement System (PAS), and resultant
student achievement outcomes, were analyzed to ascertain potential effects of teacher
initiated classroom action research to improved student achievement. The analyses also
included data from student achievement records, PAS program documents, the science
teachers’ research summary reports, and district professional development records.
Overview of the Study
The purpose of this study was to describe and understand the potential influence
of science teacher classroom action research projects upon student science achievement.
A search of the professional literature indicated that students in America are not
achieving as well in science as their counterparts in other countries. However, highly
qualified science teachers tend to have students who have higher achievement than
91
students of non-highly qualified teachers. A commonly accepted plan for increasing
teacher knowledge and skills so that they may become highly qualified is to have
teachers engage in professional development. Professional development can be
considered a form of adult learning. Therefore, learning theory as it applies to adult
learners was reviewed and a search was made to determine what types of knowledge
science teachers needed to master. Next, professional development protocols and the
resultant student achievement were investigated to discover how teachers have been
taught. The outcomes of this study will provide teachers and researchers critical
information regarding one specific type of professional development, classroom action
research and the potential impact on student achievement in science.
Participants
The population for this study included all teachers who conducted classroom
action research under PAS during school years 2001-2002, 2002-2003, and 2003-2004.
There were a total of 1326 participants during the three year data collection period. The
PAS projects were focused on reading (n = 583), mathematics (n = 335), science (n =
67), writing (n = 150), social studies (n = 57), attendance (n = 131), and graduation
(n=3). The research sample was composed of the 67 cases which focused on science
and included 28 elementary teachers, 12 middle school teachers and 27 high school
teachers. The Midwestern school district in which the data were collected was large and
urban. The district had approximately 3,000 classroom teachers during the years data
were generated. About 50% of the teachers held at least a Master’s degree, 74% were
female, and 77% were Caucasian. There were approximately 60,000 students enrolled
92
in the district; 71% of the students were classified as economically disadvantaged, 70%
were non-white, and 15% had disabilities.
Sixty-seven cases were identified as instances of classroom research into science
practices; however, only 42 of the cases had accessible data sets. Twenty-five of the 67
cases were excluded from this analysis because they were missing both student
achievement data and teacher research summary reports. These 25 participants failed to
complete all of the requirements mandated by PAS. In this program, teachers were
required to submit a research summary report at the end of their projects. Twenty-one
participants did not, so program administrators assumed that the teachers had
discontinued their classroom research and did not forward the students’ achievement
data to the outside analyst. The remaining four teachers submitted reports, but a three
member reviewing committee rejected their reports. The reports were rejected due to
insufficient teacher documentation of research activities. In both the non-completed and
the rejected cases, the data record merely indicated that the teachers applied to
participate in PAS but neither quantitative nor qualitative summative data were
registered.
Context
The action research design employed by the PAS teachers was a mixed methods
approach. The research was done in the spirit of Lewin (1948) including: identification
of a problem, selecting a solution, implementing it, and then evaluating the solution’s
effectiveness in a continuous spiral of planning, action, and fact finding. PAS teachers
monitored the effect of their instruction on student achievement through frequent short
cycle assessments. Teachers were encouraged to adjust instruction in terms of pacing,
93
mode of delivery, and student assignments to maximize student concept formation and
development. Classic components of qualitative research such as prolonged
engagement, emergent design, and cultivation of relationships with the researched
(Lincoln & Guba, 2003) were evidenced in the projects. Teachers committed to the
program in October of a given school year and continued their projects through May of
the same school year. Typically teachers worked with the students in their own
classrooms, which afforded daily contact.
Key quantitative elements were also included such as objectifying subjects
through numeric measurement of behavior, researcher control of treatment, and
expectations for generalizability (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). Even though teachers
built long term caring relationships with their students, student needs and successes
were only documented in terms of achievement test results. Projects were evaluated in
terms of student achievement on criterion referenced tests such as state achievement
tests, the Metropolitan Achievement Test (8), and district created end of course exams.
Participants controlled the treatment through complying with the NCLB mandate of
applying research-based instructional strategies for improving student achievement.
These strategies were labeled: identifying similarities and differences, summarizing and
note taking, reinforcing effort and providing recognition, homework and practice,
nonlinguistic representations, cooperative learning, setting objectives and providing
feedback, generating and testing hypotheses, cues, questions, and advance organizers
(Marzano et al., 2001). Appendix A contains a list of each of the strategies used by PAS
teachers. Numerous inservice training sessions were offered to support teachers in
94
learning about and selecting a strategy appropriate for the achievement problem that
they had identified for their action research.
Research Design
The design employed in this research was modeled after ex post facto. This type
of design is utilized to study events that have already occurred for the purpose of
seeking linkages between known outcomes and antecedent conditions (Ary, et al.,
2002). Unlike typical ex post facto studies which use multiple regression or ANCOVA
to establish linkages, this research generated linkages through interpretative techniques.
The strength of this design is that it allows researchers to investigate naturally occurring
social groups when randomization of group membership and treatment is either not
possible or ethical. The weakness of this design is that cause and effect cannot be
definitively assigned because rival hypotheses may persist even after controls have been
utilized.
Ary et al. (2002) suggest three areas of potential error in concluding cause and
effect in ex post facto designs: (a) common cause, (b) reverse causality, and (c) alternate
explanations. When the apparent relationship between independent and dependent
variables is really caused by a third variable, the relationship is said to have a common
cause. For example, the more students there are enrolled in public schools, the harder it
is to find a parking place downtown. It is spurious to claim that the increased number of
students caused an increase in parking problems; rather the increased number of
students and parking issues are both a consequence of increased population in an area.
In the present study, controlling for incorrect conclusions regarding student
achievement due to common causes was addressed through a thorough search of the
95
professional development opportunities reported by the teachers, which preceded and
occurred during the data collection time period. PAS program documents and district
testing regimen were also reviewed for confounding influences on student achievement.
Ary et al. (2002) described a second interpretation pitfall in ex post facto studies termed
reverse causality. The researcher must consider the possibility that the assignment of
variables as independent and dependent may be reversed that is Y caused X, instead of
X causing Y. The best way to sort out this dilemma is to determine which variable
occurred first. If X occurred first, then Y could not possibly have caused X. In the
present study, reverse causality was not an issue because the measurement of student
achievement occurred after the implementation of the classroom action research. The
third area of erroneous interpretation, alternate explanations, is the most challenging to
resolve in ex post facto research. Researchers must carefully consider all possible
explanations for the value of dependent variables. A thorough review of the literature
plus wide ranging descriptive data gathering may reveal rival hypotheses to explain the
dependent variable outcomes. Ary et al. (2002) suggested three methods for dealing
with rival hypotheses.
The first method of dealing with rival hypotheses, matching, requires research
participants to be matched along key attributes with comparable control individuals. For
example, teachers and students in high achieving schools would be matched with other
high achieving school populations. In the present research this was not possible because
detailed student achievement information was not available for class groups other than
the participating PAS teachers. Only district level aggregate scores were available for
96
non-PAS teacher groups. The available sample size, 42, was too small for meaningful
matching within the PAS teachers.
The second method, homogenous grouping, involves restricting the group
comparisons to those similar in attributes. In this research, grade bands, elementary,
middle and high school defined homogeneous groups. Elementary grades are
kindergarten through fifth, middle school includes grades sixth through eighth, and high
school includes grades ninth through twelfth. Apart from the differences in the ages of
the learners, grouping by grade band also accounted for differences in summative
learner assessments and teacher credentialing. High school students typically were
assessed with district created end-of-course exams, for which reliability and validity had
not been established. An exception was ninth grade students, who were assessed using a
state created proficiency test. However, the test was designed to measure student
competencies accrued in grades K-8 and bore little correlation to the ninth grade
curriculum. Students in grades 4 and 6 took state created proficiency tests based upon
the state mandated curriculum for those grades and students in grades 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8
took the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT). Both the state and MAT assessments
were thoroughly vetted for reliability and validity. In addition, at the time the data were
generated, the state required high school teachers to be content certified, while K-8
teachers were only required to have general certification. Differences in teacher training
and student testing may have influenced the resultant student achievement outcomes,
therefore, results were reported by grade level bands.
The third method of dealing with rival hypotheses is to build extraneous
variables into the design and control through statistical means such as analysis of co97
variance (ANCOVA) or conducting partial correlations. ANCOVA is a statistical
measure that adjusts the value of the dependent variable by neutralizing the initial
differences between the control and the treatment groups. However, “when interpreting
ex post facto research, it is inappropriate to assume ANCOVA has satisfactorily
adjusted for initial differences” (Ary et al., 2002, p. 348). Therefore, ANCOVA was not
utilized in the present research. Likewise, partial correlation is a statistical means of
establishing a relationship between two variables when one or more others are removed.
However, correlations are computed on variables within the same group. In the present
study, the primary interest was in differences between two different groups, students of
PAS teachers and students of non-PAS teachers. The present research is meant to be a
descriptive analysis of teacher participation in an action research program. Statistical
measures appropriate for experimental research designs have limited use in ex post
facto studies, so were not employed.
Conditions of Data Collection
The teacher participation and student achievement data were generated during
school years 2001- 2002, 2002-2003, and 2003-2004. The data were stored in both
electronic and hard copy formats. Unfortunately, some of the electronic files were
corrupt, incomplete, and coding was inconsistent from year to year. Likewise the paper
files were jumbled, but fortunately, individual files were adequately labeled, and some
of the administrative staff from the affected years were still available for consultation.
Verification of teacher participation and student achievement data was achieved through
triangulating the multiple data sources: electronic records, paper records and oral
recollection of policy decisions by PAS administrators. Collating and reconfiguring the
98
teacher participation and student achievement data record to reflect a consistent coding
scheme was a major undertaking.
Data Sources
Data sources for this study included: (a) PAS participation records of teachers,
(b) student achievement results, (c) teacher research summary reports, (d) district
professional development records, and (e) PAS program documents.
PAS Participation Records
When teachers enrolled in PAS, they were required to submit a paper
application detailing personal identification information such as name and work
location as well as the names of the students in their sample, their research question(s),
proposed solution and intended formative assessment protocols. Historically, secretaries
and the program coordinator entered this information into an Excel spreadsheet. The
electronic records were stored on the school district’s secure computer servers at the
data center. The paper copies of the applications, stored in filing cabinets at the secure
data center, were filed by year and work location of the teachers. While developing the
descriptive data sets, discrepancies that emerged among the data, were resolved by cross
checking the records held by the school district with records maintained by the outside
data consultant. In addition, people who had held administrative roles in PAS were
consulted on matters of policy that impacted the integrity of the data.
Student Achievement Records
All student achievement data for district and state mandated assessments were
stored in massive district wide files at the secure data center. District data analysts
extracted individual student pretest and posttest scores for the students of PAS teachers
99
from the system. These student achievement data were linked to the correct PAS teacher
and added to the registration file. District analysts also computed the district minimum
and maximum scores for each assessment, and the standard deviation. Lastly, individual
student attendance rates were calculated and added to the registration file. Program
guidelines dictated that elementary and middle school students had to maintain a 90%
attendance rate and high school students were required have an attendance rate of 88%
during the classroom action research project. These data were also added to the
registration file. The outside data analyst calculated and added information regarding
student achievement gain to the file.
Student achievement gain was calculated by identifying the prior year science
summative test score and the current year science summative test score for each student
in a teacher’s sample and then computing a simple class-mean gain. In most cases,
dissimilar assessments in adjacent grade levels necessitated conversion of student raw
scores to z scores. The z score is the number of standard deviation units an individual
student’s raw score is above or below the district mean. It has a one-to-one relationship
with the standard deviation unit; one z-score unit equals one standard deviation unit. On
the z score scale the mean is set at zero. The z score is calculated by taking the raw
score for a student, subtracting the district mean (average) of all student scores and
dividing by the district standard deviation on the assessment. For example: z score =
(student raw score – district mean) /district standard deviation. Student z scores were
further converted to Normal Curve Equivalents for reporting.
The Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) is derived from the z score. On the NCE
scale, the mean is set at 50% and each unit of standard deviation is represented by a
100
21.06% increase or decrease from the mean. The NCE has a range of 1 to 99%. The
Normal Curve Equivalent can be thought of as the raw score percentage fitted to the
normal distribution (bell curve). The NCE is calculated by multiplying the z score by
21.06 and adding 50. That is: NCE = (z score x 21.06) + 50.
Teacher Research Summary Reports
A requirement of PAS is that at the conclusion of the school year, teachers must
submit a written summary report detailing their action research project. One purpose of
the summary report was to foster teacher reflection on connections between their
teaching practice and resultant student achievement. Teachers were given written
prompts to assist in the reflection process. Teachers were expected to address these
prompts as a minimum. However, many chose to include additional information in their
summary reports. The papers were not to exceed four typed pages in length, but a few
were much longer. Appendix B lists the required writing prompts for each year data
were collected. The prompts were essentially the same during all three years from
which data were collected.
Professional Development Records
District professional development records covering the years immediately
preceding and during the PAS data generation years were an additional data source.
Professional development catalogs and an administrative document were used to
establish major school district professional development initiatives. Teacher learning, as
evidenced by classroom practice, may not appear until long after professional
development episodes (Kelleher, 2003). Participation in a year long action research
project was expected to create a context for experimenting with strategy
101
implementation. Therefore, the professional development records were reviewed
because it was anticipated that teachers might include knowledge acquired in previous
sessions during their action research projects.
PAS Program Documents
Each year that PAS was conducted, participants received a printed copy and had
access to an online copy of the guidelines for participation, the PAS Guideline Booklet.
This document was revised each year to reflect the ongoing improvements of the
program as mandated by the governing committee, the Joint PAS Committee. Details
regarding selection of a student sample, identification of a research question, formative
and summative student assessment, acceptable instructional strategies and prompts for
writing a research summary report were listed in the booklet. The booklets from school
years 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 served as reference to document teacher
participation requirements.
The initial years of PAS were marked by contentious challenges to the rules by
PAS participants. These challenges were addressed by the Joint PAS Committee and
documented in meeting minutes. Some of the written guidelines were changed midcycle to better meet the needs of teachers and students. The meeting minutes from the
years data were generated also served as data sources for documenting teacher
participation requirements.
National Science Education Standards
In 1996, the NRC published a set of standards for “what students need to know,
understand, and be able to do to be scientifically literate at different grade levels”,
(NRC, 1996, p.2). This document was intended as a tool for planning instruction to
102
ensure high quality learning outcomes for all students and was utilized as a reference for
science content in the PAS teacher projects.
Data Analysis
Data analysis procedures varied in relation to the information sought for each
research question. Table 3.1 summarizes the research questions, data sources and
analysis procedures.
Research Question
Data Source
Data Analysis
How did implementation of teacher
action research projects vary across
grade band levels?
PAS teacher participation SPSS frequency
records
count
Teacher research
summary reports
Consumption
analysis
What growth in knowledge and skills
do PAS teachers report?
Teacher research
summary reports
Consumption
analysis
Do the instructional practices
reported by teachers reflect the
National Science Education
Standards?
Teacher research
summary reports
Content
analysis
NSES
Production
analysis
Do the instructional practices
reported by teachers reflect the
knowledge and skills presented in
other professional development
episodes attended by the teacher?
Teacher research
summary reports
Content
analysis
District professional
development records
Production
analysis
What practical issues did teachers
identify as having an impact on
student science achievement?
Teacher research
summary reports
Content
analysis
(Continued)
Table 3.1. Overview of Research Questions, Data Sources, and Analysis Procedures.
103
Table 3.1. Continued.
Research Question
Data Source
Data Analysis
What instructional practices Teacher research summary
did teachers utilize with
reports
students to improve
achievement on science
assessments?
Content analysis
How do the student
achievement outcomes of
PAS teachers vary?
Teacher research summary
reports
Content analysis
Student achievement
records
SPSS cross tab
Effect size
Teacher research summary
reports
Production analysis
PAS Guideline Booklet
Production analysis
PAS Joint Committee
meeting minutes
Production analysis
How do program
requirements influence
implementation?
Quantitative
Descriptive data sets were generated through statistical procedures in the
Statistical Program for the Social Sciences (SPSS Version 15.0 for Windows). Simple
frequency counts and cross tabulation of teacher participation and student achievement
data were calculated. Effect sizes were also calculated to measure the impact of teacher
participation in action research on student achievement. Evaluating student achievement
by comparing performance to a set standard can sometimes mask the practical value of
that achievement due to marked differences in sample size. In PAS, classroom sample
sizes typically were less than 30, but were compared to the district sample that had on
average 4,500 students. Therefore, differences in variability had a greater impact on the
104
classroom means than on the district. One way to ameliorate this problem is to calculate
an effect size, which is a measure of the magnitude of the treatment independent of the
sample size. One method described by Rosenthal (1991) advocates the use of the
standard deviation value obtained from a paired samples t test. An effect size is
calculated by dividing the difference between the pretest and posttest scores by the
standard deviation obtained from the paired samples t. Using the interpretation scale
suggested by Cohen (as cited in King & Minium, 2003) an effect size of .20 may be
viewed as small, .50 viewed as medium, and .80 considered large. The resultant effect
sizes will be discussed in relation to the analyses of the teacher summary reports.
Qualitative
In this research, an inductive method was employed during document analyses
on PAS science teacher research summary reports. Teacher professional development
records and PAS documents were examined for supporting evidence and influence upon
the teacher summary reports. The analyses were conducted using the three lenses
suggested by Prior (2003). The teacher research summary reports were analyzed for
content, elements of production, and purposes for consumption. The purpose of content
analysis was to discover what teachers reported doing with students during their
classroom action research. The summary reports were also examined for evidence of
conditions contributing to how the research was conducted, (i.e. elements of
production), such as influences from other professional development events. Purpose
for consumption, why the summary report was produced, was informed by PAS
program documents as well as the content of the summary reports.
105
An emergent qualitative coding scheme was developed as suggested by the data
(Charmaz, 2003). However, Table 3.2 indicates broad categories that initially framed
the analyses. Content analysis focused on the question, “What did the teachers report
doing?” Production analysis considered the question, “What influenced how the teacher
did the research?” The third area, consumption, sought answers to, “Why did the
teacher do the research in the manner chosen?” Themes and patterns that emerged were
documented.
Content (what):
•
Practical issues in science achievement identified as needing improvement
•
Types of instructional practices implemented
•
Evidence of student conceptual growth
•
NSES content categories addressed
Production (how):
•
Conditions/challenges affecting implementation of the classroom research
•
Influences of previous professional development
•
PAS program requirements
•
Evidence of utilizing the National Science Education Standards
Consumption (why):
•
Evidence of changes in teaching practice
•
Evidence of student learning
•
Evidence of teacher learning through reflection
Table 3.2. Initial Coding Fields for the Analysis of Teacher Research Summary Reports.
106
Trustworthiness
Researcher Role
Prolonged engagement as a participant observer, both inside and outside of PAS
was employed to gain an authentic view of the program (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993;
Lincoln & Guba, 2003). During the years that the data in this study were generated, the
primary researcher engaged in classroom action research with second grade students
and contributed to the data set. However, at the end of school year 2003-2004, she
accepted the position of program coordinator. It was in this capacity that the evaluation
was initiated out of a strong desire to improve the scope and effectiveness of PAS. At
that time the very existence of the program was in jeopardy due to a budget crisis in the
school district, so it was critical that an evaluation of the program be performed to
justify either its continuance or demise.
Multiple Data Sources
Multiple data sources were utilized in developing a document analysis data
corpus; teacher participation records, teacher professional development records, teacher
research summary reports, student achievement records, NSES and PAS program
documents. Verification of the data collected was achieved through triangulating the
multiple data sources and methods. Electronic records were confirmed through
comparison to paper files and also to electronic records kept by the outside PAS data
analyst. Comparisons were made between the teacher self reported research-based
instructional strategies in the electronic records and descriptions of actual practice
reported by the teachers’ in their summary reports.
107
Multiple Voices
Multiple views of the outcomes assisted the researcher in reconstructing the
moment, as it were, of the teachers’ classroom action research projects. Elliott (1991)
described university supported classroom action research as having multiple levels of
focus. Multiple viewpoints were also found in PAS that correspond to the three types of
classroom action research delineated by McKernan (1996), but the proponents of each
view were separated by organizational roles, which predicted the resultant espoused
purpose for research. The school district, which provided financial support for PAS,
specified clear expectations that the purpose of PAS was to improve student
achievement and generate knowledge of instructional procedures that would be suitable
for urban education. The school district embraced a technical-scientific stance toward
classroom action research. The teachers’ union, which championed the rights of the
teachers, was most interested in empowering the teachers to demonstrate their skills and
knowledge apart from the teacher proof curriculum imposed by the school district and
to earn bonus pay for a job well done. The teachers’ union supported PAS from a
critical-emancipatory stance. Walking the tightrope between the position of the school
district and that of the teachers’ union, the classroom teachers were most interested in
discovering practical solutions to the everyday problems of teaching and learning in an
urban setting. The teachers operated from a practical-deliberative stance. For the
teachers, thinking like a researcher was synonymous with problem solving.
Limitations of the Study
This study was limited by the ex post facto research design. This design is
employed to study events that have already occurred and seeks linkages between known
108
outcomes and pre-existing conditions (Ary, et al., 2002). The research subjects selfselected into the program being evaluated, therefore, outcomes may be the result of
peculiarities inherent in the research sample. Additionally, self-reported teacher data, in
form of research summary reports, was utilized. If the teacher reports were not accurate
reflections of the classroom action research, then conclusions drawn from them may be
skewed.
Gains in student achievement were calculated utilizing student scores on
standardized achievement tests. However, summative student achievement tests varied
from grade level to grade level; consequently z-scores were utilized to compute gain.
Utilizing different achievement tests from one grade level to another highlighted the
issue of comparable difficulty levels of the assessments, which was not determined.
Producing a gain between the Metropolitan Achievement Test and the State
Achievement Test may not have been as difficult as showing a gain when the pretest
and posttest assessments were both State Achievement Tests. A further limitation
related to achievement tests is that student performance on standardized assessments
was assumed to be a valid appraisal of classroom instruction.
Generalizability of the results of this study is limited by the situated nature of
classroom action research (Feldman, 1994). It would be very difficult, if not impossible
to replicate all conditions present within a collection of classroom action research
projects. Successful application of research outcomes would depend upon the match
with students and teachers in other settings.
109
Chapter Summary
This chapter explained the methodology utilized in the present study.
Information pertaining to: participants, context, research design, data sources, data
analysis, trustworthiness and limitations were discussed. Table 3.1 was created to serve
as an overview of the research questions matched with the data sources and analysis
procedures utilized to answer them. Table 3.2 identified preliminary coding categories
for the document analysis of the teacher research summary reports. The next chapter,
Chapter Four, will discuss the findings, which both answered and challenged the
research questions.
110
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
This chapter reports the results from the data analysis for the study. The results
are reported in eight sections corresponding to the eight research questions. For the
analysis of research questions one and seven, teachers were grouped into three grade
bands: elementary, including grades kindergarten through fifth, middle school,
including grades six through eight, and high school including grades nine through
twelve. Data were collected and analyzed to answer the remaining research questions
without regard to the grade level taught by the teachers.
This study examined the influence of science teacher action research projects upon
student science achievement. Eight research questions guided the research.
1. How did implementation of teacher action research projects vary across grade
band levels?
2. What growth in teaching knowledge and skills did PAS teachers report?
3. Do the instructional practices reported by teachers reflect the National Science
Education Standards?
4. Do the instructional practices reported by teachers reflect the knowledge and
skills presented in other professional development episodes available to the
teachers?
111
5. What practical issues did teachers identify as having an impact on student
science achievement?
6. What instructional practices did teachers utilize with students to improve
achievement on science assessments?
7. How do the student achievement outcomes of Performance Advancement
System teachers vary?
8. How do program requirements influence implementation?
Research Question 1: How Did Implementation of Teacher Action Research Projects
Vary Across Grade Level Bands?
Background
Teachers who voluntarily participated in PAS were subject to a few inviolate
parameters. Participants were required to identify a student sample, an academic area of
need, and a research-based instructional strategy to employ as an intervention. The
information had to be submitted on an application by a specified deadline. Throughout
the school year, teachers implemented their projects and collected formative assessment
data to modify their instructional interventions based upon student response. At the end
of the school year, teachers gave students the district level summative assessment and
wrote a research summary report. If the teachers complied with all program parameters
and their students’ demonstrated a mean achievement gain greater than the school
district, then the teachers were eligible for a cash award. Participants who failed to
complete all of the requirements mandated by the program were not eligible for the
award.
112
Participation Results
The data sources utilized to determine how participation in PAS varied across
school levels were the teacher research applications and PAS program files.
Participation information was entered into an Excel spreadsheet to permit analysis using
the software Statistical Program for the Social Sciences. A crosstabs analysis was
conducted to tabulate the numbers and percentages of teachers who completed a PAS
science project.
Sixty-seven teachers initiated an action research project in science; however
only 42 of the cases completed the entire process. Twenty-one participants failed to
complete all of the program requirements, and so, were missing the student achievement
data analysis for gain examined elsewhere in this research. The remaining four teachers
submitted research reports, but a three member reviewing committee rejected their
reports. Table 4.1 summarizes the enrollment and completion data by school level:
elementary, grades kindergarten through fifth (ES), middle school, grades six through
eight (MS), and high school, grades nine through twelve (HS).
School Level
ES
MS
HS
Total
Enrollment N
28
12
27
67
Completion N
18
4
20
42
% Completion
64%
34%
74%
63%
Table 4.1. Enrollment and Completion Rates by School Level.
The enrollment rates of teachers in PAS were nearly equal for elementary and
high school teachers; however, more HS teachers completed their projects than ES
teachers. Fewer teachers of middle school students enrolled, and even fewer completed
113
their projects. The total number of teachers who enrolled but failed to complete all PAS
requirements was 25.
Interpretive Findings
The data source utilized to answer the question of how teacher interpretation of
classroom action research varied across the grade level bands was the teacher research
summary reports. The reports were read multiple times and analyzed utilizing Prior’s
(2003) document analysis framework. This framework espouses viewing documents
through three lenses, the face value content, elements of production, and purpose(s) for
consumption. Evidence was collected to supply warrants for what teachers did, how
they did it, and why they did it.
Five themes emerged from the teacher research summary reports indicating that
PAS teachers chose subtly different foci to implement their science classroom action
research projects. The five orientation categories that emerged were labeled science
oriented, strategy oriented, testing practice, literacy oriented, and research oriented.
Table 4.2 lists the number of projects by school level that fit each category.
Science
Strategy
Testing
Literacy
Research
Total
ES
MS
HS
Total
10
3
2
3
0
18
1
2
1
0
0
4
6
10
2
0
2
20
17
15
5
3
2
42
Table 4.2 Projects by School Level and Focus.
114
Science-Oriented Projects
Teachers who focused their classroom action research on science oriented goals
described systematic instruction aimed at building conceptual understanding,
facilitating student inquiry, and addressing science content standards. An example of
working for conceptual understanding was a middle school teacher who monitored
student conceptual understanding through regular homework assignments. Students
were required to write responses to prompts based upon the day’s lesson. During the
first ten minutes of the following class period, students shared and defended their
written responses with classmates. These discussions afforded the teacher an
opportunity to catch and re-teach content that was misunderstood. In addition, the
teacher shared an insight about the nature of science:
Students gained insight on appropriate responses necessary for extended
response questions and an understanding that the explanation of a scientific
process is as important as the final answer. (Case 968.1)
The inquiry theme was exemplified by a high school physics teacher who
encouraged student inquiry by having students work in cooperative groups in the
laboratory, during problem solving sessions and unit reviews. He described the intensity
of his students’ inquiry work:
The Junk Box Wars lab required students to build a rubber band powered car
and a snowball launcher. During the building of the rubber band-powered cars
the groups began to get very competitive and often went to great lengths to hide
their ideas from other groups. (Case 703.1)
An example of focusing on the NSES (NRC, 1996) was provided by an
elementary teacher who built her project upon delivering the science standards to
students through guided inquiry episodes followed by direct instruction. She described
115
following a modification of the 5E Learning Cycle model, as described by Llewellyn
(2002), learned during prior professional development.
Students came for science instruction twice a week. During the 75-minute lab
hour, the focus was to introduce students to major science concepts using the
skills of inquiry. During the tutoring time, the focus was on specific test taking
skills and identifying weaknesses in process skills and knowledge. When major
weaknesses in knowledge or process skills were identified, lab time was used to
give students a concrete understanding of a concept or skill. (Case 376.3)
Historically, elementary teachers have allocated little classroom time for science
(Appleton, 2007). It is interesting to note that more than half of the elementary teacher
projects could be classified as having a science-oriented focus. However, such was not
the case for all of the PAS teachers, some chose a different focus.
Strategy-Oriented Projects
Fifteen of the PAS teachers interpreted PAS as an opportunity to learn a new
teaching strategy, in essence, improving their own pedagogical knowledge, instead of
working towards improving student learning. An elementary teacher based her project
on the premise that teaching students to take good notes would raise students’ science
achievement. She taught her students to take notes on the textbook by using the section
headings and chapter check-up questions. The students progressed to taking notes
during videos and class lectures. Eventually the students wrote outlines and created
webs.
When first begun, this practice [taking notes on a video] was hard for the
students (there were no subheadings or pre-known questions to use), but by their
creating a web on the material presented in the video as they watched, students
gained another tool to improve their skill. (Case 695.3)
One middle school teacher persisted in employing graphic organizers despite
misgivings that some of her students did not understand the content.
116
The graphic organizers were not as effective for my students who did not have
any knowledge of what the question was asking. These students became
proficient at putting the key words of the question into the different sections of
the organizers, but it did not provide them with enough help to be successful
answering the questions. Hopefully, the skill they learned about analyzing
questions will serve them later in school. (Case 139)
High school teachers in particular (n= 10), were drawn to strategy-oriented
implementations. The reason may be that content instruction is ingrained at the high
school level; so teachers chose to experiment with the delivery of the content. One
example of a high school biology project involved a great emphasis upon developing
critical thinking skills.
The objective was to sharpen the students’ critical thinking skills with weekly
practice answering high-level questions that required the students to think
critically about the content of the lesson. (Case 798)
Testing-Oriented Projects
Despite the district emphasis on increasing student test scores, only 5 PAS
teachers chose to focus on test-taking procedures in their science projects. Teachers had
the students write answers daily to open-response questions modeled after state
proficiency test questions or take multiple iterations of practice tests devised from
released test items. One of the elementary teachers assigned structured notebooks in
which students recorded definitions of science terms and directions for setting up and
analyzing guided inquiry lessons. She commented:
The students answered the questions carefully and gave me their best. But, they
did not enjoy working on the curriculum guide assessment questions. (Case 527)
A middle school teacher gave so many practice tests that she had the students chart their
progress on them throughout the year.
117
After administering the 9th grade Practice Proficiency Test the second week of
school, I discovered less than 25% of my 8th grade students past [sic] the
science section of the test. With this information I developed a plan to have
students chart their progress weekly in Science as well as their scores on
Practice Proficiency Tests throughout the year. (Case 873)
Literacy-Oriented Projects
Three elementary teachers chose to utilize the area of science for teaching
literacy skills, primarily nonfiction writing. An example of a teacher who focused on
literacy skills combined teaching students to write summaries with creating a science
notebook. She reported:
I had the students bring in a three-ring binder to use exclusively for science.
Throughout the school year the binders served as a study guide students could
take home, study and bring back to school. Almost all of the work in the binder
was the student's own summaries or notes about various topics we studied in
class. There were also observation charts or worksheets from
experiments/activities we had done in class. (Case 521.3)
Another teacher reported positive student reactions to working on literacy standards
during science class.
My conclusion is that students need to do more publishing. This past year's
students were very proud of their accomplishment of publishing. I will also
continue the science journal writing. I feel it has been an effective strategy for
memory retention. (Case 896)
Research-Oriented Projects
Two high school teachers chose to implement an experimental design instead of
an action research design for their PAS projects. One teacher created a time series
research design in which all students received the research strategy treatment, but only
for a limited period of time. She concluded that during the grading periods in which
students received strategy-based instruction, formative test scores were better than when
students did not receive the strategy-based instruction. The other teacher who focused
118
on enacting a research project focused on applying the conceptual change model to
students learning about light and motion mechanics. Students completed a survey before
instruction to establish existing knowledge and beliefs. Students were challenged to
support or refute their stated conceptual understandings on the survey with evidence
collected during guided inquiry. She concluded that some of her students made
progress, but that others still needed more work.
The pre and post data results indicate that students need more discussion and
argumentation opportunities related to the concepts of the nature of light, the
geometry of convex lenses, and the characteristics of pendulum motion.
(Case 958)
Summary Research Question 1
Results indicated that there was variation across grade bands in the manner
which PAS participants implemented science classroom action research. The
orientations of the science action research projects were diversified across five general
categories: science, strategy, testing, literacy and research. Elementary teachers focused
mainly on science-oriented goals and worked on developing conceptual understanding,
facilitating student inquiry and employing the NSES. High school teachers mainly
worked on experimenting with strategy implementation such as cooperative learning,
portfolio assessment and reinforcing student effort. There were too few middle school
teachers (n = 4) to generate a project focus pattern. Of the five focus areas that emerged
from the teacher summary reports, science-oriented had the greatest number of
participants.
Data also confirmed that there was variation across grade bands in the PAS
participation rates. Numbers of participants were nearly equal in elementary and high
119
school, but middle school teacher participation was much less. No data were available
to explain this discrepancy.
Research Question 2: What Growth in Teaching Knowledge and Skills Do PAS
Teachers Report?
Background
In the first section, data pertaining to teacher participation and project focus
were reported. In this section, what teachers learned from completing their action
research will be presented. The data source was the teacher research summary reports
which included teacher responses to four open-ended questions. Appendix B lists the
four open-ended questions to which teachers were required to respond. These openended questions were designed to assist the PAS teachers in reflecting about the
successes and challenges of their projects. The teacher responses were interpreted
through Prior’s (2003) document analysis framework which includes analysis of
content, production and consumption. The consumption portion of the framework
focuses on the use of the document produced. In this analysis, the use of the document
was to generate teacher knowledge through reflection. The knowledge teachers accrued
through PAS participation are consistent with two out of three types of teacher
knowledge defined by Shulman (1986; 1987), pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical
content knowledge. No evidence of teacher learning was found that corresponds to
Shulman’s third type of knowledge, subject content knowledge.
Identifying teacher learning in terms of pedagogical and pedagogical content
knowledge is consistent with one purpose generally associated with classroom action
120
research, which is to identify and solve questions of classroom practice. Data supporting
this assertion from the teacher research summary reports will be reported in two
sections. Examples consistent with gains in general teaching knowledge known as
pedagogical knowledge will be presented first. Next, examples of teachers reporting
learning in specific teaching knowledge known as PCK will be given.
Pedagogical Knowledge
Four themes of pedagogical teacher learning emerged from the data analysis:
(1) refinement of strategy implementation, (2) use of reflection to guide practice,
(3) knowledge about formative assessment, and (4) awareness of the need to include
parents in school learning.
Pedagogical Knowledge of Strategy Refinement
Results indicated that the greatest number of statements regarding teacher
learning were categorized as refinements to the implementation of their selected
strategy. These refinements are categorized as pedagogical knowledge because they
comprise general knowledge of effective instructional practices. Three examples of
teachers who learned how to improve their implementation of cooperative learning
groups will be shared here. A high school teacher noted that he changed his role from
director to guide as he and his students learned how to implement cooperative groups.
As time passed and students became accustomed to this method of learning I
found that I became more of a guide and less of a director in their learning. I
found that I had time to walk around the classroom and advise groups and even
challenge some groups to explore that one step beyond what was presented in
the text. (Case 77.1)
By changing roles from a director to a guide, this teacher surrendered the responsibility
for learning to his students. The stance of his teaching pedagogy switched from didactic
121
to constructivist. A different high school teacher realized that how groups were
constructed influenced the quality of the student work produced.
It was discovered that the construction of the groups played a significant role in
the success of the group adequately completing an assignment. When students
worked on self-selected topics, they worked more productively in self-selected
groups. On the other hand, when students had to complete assignments that
involved pre-determined topics, pre-assigned groups were the most effective
because the groups were more balanced. (Case 1069.1)
This example illustrates teacher improvement in the pedagogical knowledge of why
matching learning objectives and cooperative grouping structures is important. Selfselected groups work best on self-selected topics and assigned groups work best on
assigned topics. A third teacher discovered that permitting students to work in
cooperative groups was productive for some objectives, but insufficient for attaining the
level of academic achievement he desired.
I plan to continue implementing the strategies using cooperative learning groups
for level one assignments. However, I will implement other strategies to
improve test scores and accelerate learning. (Case 413)
The pedagogical knowledge attained by this teacher was that cooperative learning
groups cannot be the only classroom strategy he uses.
Pedagogical Knowledge of Reflective Practice
Some teachers stated that their personal learning centered on developing an
understanding of their practice through reflection. Reflective practice is not limited to a
specific content area; it is applicable to teaching all subjects. Therefore, when reflection
is employed on a regular basis, it becomes pedagogical knowledge of how to proceed
with the next instructional cycle. A teacher remarked:
122
I have increased my reflections on my teaching methods. It was through this
reflection that I came to realize I need to increase my use of writing in science
labs for all of the students in the grade levels that I co-teach. (Case 491.1)
This teacher changed her pedagogical knowledge to include the use of reflection more
often. The value of reflection revealed the need to include writing in science class for all
of her students, not just ones identified as gifted and talented. Upon reflection, another
teacher began to question her uniform teaching style.
Having a chance to participate in this PAS project has taught me a lot about
myself as a teacher. Many times, I feel students have mastered a concept without
testing my own hypothesis. I found this to be true during the year. Just when I
thought students had mastered a certain skill, such as taking curriculum guide
assessments, I was proven wrong. This gave me the opportunity to examine my
teaching style as an educator and to realize that there is never one right way.
What works for some children, may not work for others. (Case 527)
The pedagogical knowledge of this teacher was altered to include the need for
differentiated instruction. In a third case, a teacher commented on the value of student
reflection as a source of identifying instructional starting points.
In order for my teaching to be more successful for the 2004-2005 school year, I
would spend more time on working with more reflective writing, particularly
homework journals. For me, the writing entries in journals, portfolios, and
projects revealed vital information about what my students learned and what
misconceptions I still needed to help clarify. (Case 363.3)
Through teacher reflection on student reflection, this example showed a growth in
pedagogical knowledge pertaining to assessment of student understanding.
Pedagogical Knowledge of Assessment
Some PAS teachers referenced personal learning in terms of developing more
effective formative assessment practices. Formative assessment has been described as
techniques employed by teachers to determine the extent that students comprehend
123
current instruction (Bell, 2007). An elementary teacher described her discovery of
rubrics in this example.
When I first started using my Performance Advancement System plan I had
teacher-made tests as my only building-level measure. However, through the
process I came to realize the value of using rubrics with the students. (Case 97)
By including rubrics in her repertoire of assessment possibilities, this teacher increased
her pedagogical knowledge. Other teachers reported developing different assessment
techniques such as assessing prior knowledge through oral questioning and written
student responses. The next example is also from an elementary teacher.
Another way this strategy was effective had more to do with my teaching, but
still consequently improved my students' learning. Advance questioning and
organizers gave me more insight into what my students already knew than I ever
had before. This sounds obvious, but it made it possible for me to make changes
to my lessons immediately to accommodate my students' prior knowledge. (Case
299.3)
The pedagogical knowledge learned in this case was that determining student prior
knowledge was useful when planning instruction to meet the needs of the students.
A high school teacher noted the variable effects of assessment choice on student results.
In my reflection, I learned that students who sometimes test poorly on paper
really knew the content that I had taught. I truly believe using portfolios and
projects afforded students diverse ways to demonstrate their knowledge,
creativity, and analytical talents. Indeed, it provided me with a valuable
assessment tool that was very useful for adapting future lessons. (Case 363.1)
The pedagogical knowledge learned in this case was that formative assessment can
highlight student knowledge that is not revealed in standardized tests.
Pedagogical Knowledge of Parental Involvement
The last pedagogical knowledge theme to emerge from the teacher research
summary reports was increased awareness of the need to include parents in the school
124
learning of their children. Parental involvement was perceived by the PAS teachers as a
means to increase student attendance and engagement. This is consistent with Social
Constructivist Learning Theory in which the development of a community of learners
contributes to knowledge construction (Miller, 2002). As a strategy for improving
classroom climate and community relations, parental involvement was viewed here as
pedagogical knowledge. A high school teacher who participated in PAS with a team of
colleagues commented that early in their project, they realized that improvement in their
methods for including parents had to be a part of their action research.
As for parental contact, we started by recognizing that this was an area in which
we needed to improve our own efforts. Overall, I am very proud of the
improvements we made over our own efforts in this area [parental contacts]
from previous years. (Case 591.2)
The teachers expanded their repertoire of pedagogical knowledge to include a system
for initiating and documenting communication with each parent in the freshman class at
least three times during a grading period. The communication took the forms of
telephone calls, post cards, face-to-face meetings at school sporting events, and formal
conferences.
An elementary teacher reported that she planned to contact the parents of low
performing students to seek parental support for student learning.
My goal will be to utilize this data collection to individualize the needs of
students who are in jeopardy of failing and making some phone calls to parents
to initiate some assistance from home. (Case 376.1)
The pedagogical knowledge in this case emphasizes the need to build family/school
connections for improving student achievement.
125
Results indicate that PAS science participants gained pedagogical knowledge
related to refinement of instructional strategy delivery, use of reflective practice,
formative assessment, and inclusion of parents into the school learning of their children.
In the next section, teacher learning of how to teach so students can learn will be
presented.
Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) involves knowing how to teach specific
content so that students can learn the material. PCK involves knowing the relative
difficulty of the concepts, common student misconceptions and instructional strategies
that enhance student conceptual understanding. Three themes emerged from the PAS
science teachers’ summary reports that were specifically related to teaching and
learning in science, facilitating student inquiry, developing conceptual understanding
and incorporating writing-to-learn in science.
Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Student Inquiry
Ten PAS teachers reported evidence of learning to teach science through student
inquiry. However, a wide range of meaning was associated with the concept of student
inquiry when interpreting the summary reports. Both of the following examples were
drawn from elementary teacher reports. The first viewed inquiry as a long-term guided
experience in which students accrued investigatory skill. The teacher related how she
changed the order in which she presented concepts of inquiry to her students.
This year's timeline demonstrates a clear and improved departure from the past
order of instruction. I feel that introducing the documentation and data collection
instruction before the small group project was more beneficial to my students
because these skills afforded them the opportunity to gather and refine
126
information using some prior knowledge newly developed in these areas. (Case
1054.1)
This example demonstrates that logical sequencing of inquiry skills can be an important
PCK tool for developing student conceptual understanding.
The teacher in the second example differentiated between open and guided
inquiry demonstrating the value of explicit science education instruction for inservice
teachers. She referenced a prior professional development experience that was highly
influential on her practice.
Two years ago I was enrolled in COSI's Inquiry Learning for Schools (ILS).
This program changed the way I teach science. The purpose of the class was to
introduce teachers to using scientific inquiry with students. I implemented this
strategy with nearly every lesson I taught. I developed an inquiry science journal
that totally immersed students into the inquiry process. (Case 376.3)
The PCK developed by this teacher was a practical expression of theory learned in
previous professional development.
Three teachers seemed to equate student inquiry with student engagement in
active lessons within cooperative learning groups. The first teacher described using
discreet episodes of active learning that may have been guided inquiry.
It is my conclusion that if teachers would be consistent and teach science in a
hands-on components-based way using practice proficiency questions, allowing
cooperative learning, children would learn the concepts of science, and show
more success on the State Proficiency Test. (Case 870)
The PCK learned by this teacher was that the social construction of knowledge through
active learning in cooperative groups utilizing science content highlighted in practice
exam items was likely beneficial in passing state achievement tests.
127
A middle school teacher alluded to inquiry episodes by name, but did not
explain what occurred in the lessons. What she did make explicit, was that the lessons
occurred during cooperative groups.
I think that students like science because group work isn't boring. Because they
are excited about it, they learn it and remember it better. Most of our cooperative
group activities were successful. Two of my favorites were Mystery Powder and
Decomposing Log. (Case 940)
The PCK learning by the middle school teacher is not explicit, but she did find that
students enjoyed cooperative inquiry lessons. A high school teacher also built lessons
around cooperative group inquiry.
My whole teaching philosophy is dependent on cooperative learning because I
believe that students must be actively involved in their own education. To help
students teach themselves, I used group work. We did 3 to 5 activities a week,
and students worked in groups for almost all of them. (Case 877.1)
The PCK demonstrated by this example is consistent with social constructivist
learning theory in that students constructed knowledge through inquiry in a social
situation.
Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Building a Conceptual Framework
A common theme throughout the PAS summary reports was devising schemes
to assist students in recording pertinent facts, vocabulary and procedures unique to
science education. Vygotsky (1978) stated that one of the key tasks teachers need to
perform at school is to supply students with the logical framework of the subject content
being studied. Students bring everyday knowledge to the learning situation, and
teachers must supply the language and structure of logical thinking to assist in the
transformation of experience into conventionally accepted conceptual understanding.
128
Without an organizing framework, students may perceive lessons as isolated bits of
knowledge.
One elementary teacher reported the usefulness of employing graphic organizers
to assist students in building connections among facts and vocabulary related to the
same concept.
This specific strategy [graphic organizer] was very effective in my class. I felt
that it got the students focused on the concept and it helped them organize their
thoughts and ideas. (Case 740)
The PCK developed by this teacher was utilizing a variety of graphic organizers with
students to assist them in making conceptual connections.
Another elementary teacher found that teaching students to summarize
classroom discourse, recording notes during guided inquiry, and constructing a portfolio
of content related artifacts were valuable tools to organizing young students’ thinking
about science.
Teaching science in a format using note taking and summarizing, is a useful way
to instruct students. Portfolios are beneficial components for [teachers and
students] keeping track of student progress. Although all students showed
progress in some way, some students will need to revisit ideas and concepts in
the future. (Case 973.1)
This teacher developed PCK in teaching students to record science learning in notes,
summaries and portfolios. These student artifacts demonstrated progress in developing
science knowledge to both the students and the teacher.
A fourth grade teacher found similar student benefits from requiring students to
keep all of their science work together in a binder.
In reflection, I feel the binder was an excellent way to keep students organized
in science, as well as give them a useful resource for [preparing for summative]
assessment. (Case 521.3)
129
This example showed that when students kept a science binder, the teacher could be
assured that students would have the necessary study materials for test preparation. The
PCK learned by the teacher revolved around how to support fourth graders in creating
and using notebooks for study. This type of physical organization can be used to
promote mental organization of science concepts.
Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Writing in a Content Area
A variety of writing strategies were reported by 40% of the PAS science
teachers. When students are guided through writing processes geared toward
cataloguing and clarifying information, the technique is termed writing-to-learn
(Routman, 1991). The termed label is meant to differentiate between learning how to
write and utilizing writing as an applied skill for learning. Results indicated that writing
was employed in three types of student assignments: laboratory write-ups, formative
assessment, and science journals. A high school teacher described how writing in
laboratory notebooks was used as a means of encouraging students to embrace
evidenced-based reasoning.
The one area that students struggled with all year was writing the conclusion.
My strategy for next year will be to continue working on the hypothesis and
procedure and also work on students' ability to convey what they observe in the
lab in their conclusion. (Case 530)
Making conclusions based upon evidence is an important step away from perceptual
understanding of science concepts toward logical understanding of science concepts.
The PCK in process of being acquired was, knowing how to help students write
evidence-based conclusions.
130
Learning how to incorporate writing in science class was identified by an
elementary teacher as a valuable tool to measure student conceptual understanding.
I will continue with my emphasis on requiring students to write about their
understanding of each SLC [State Learning Competency] or activity topic.
Additionally, I believe it was very valuable for my students to use a variety of
graphic organizers to help with their writing. I will continue to supply rubrics
along with an assignment, so students know what is expected and are able to
evaluate their own products prior to my evaluation. (Case 937)
This example showed how a teacher developed PCK in helping students to self-evaluate
their conceptual understanding through writing.
Another elementary teacher valued writing in science journals for building
science content knowledge.
I will also continue the science journal writing. I feel it has been an effective
strategy for memory retention. (Case 896)
Summary Research Question 2
Evidence of teacher learning was extrapolated from the teacher research
summary reports. Teachers reported learning pedagogical tools such as improving their
instructional delivery of research-based strategies, developing an understanding of their
practice through reflection, developing formative assessments, and finding ways to
include parents. Teachers also described learning pedagogical content knowledge in
terms of learning to teach science through student inquiry, developing organizational
schemes for students to record vocabulary, concepts and scientific procedures; and
incorporating writing to build student conceptual understanding.
131
Research Question 3: Do the Instructional Practices Reported by Teachers Reflect the
National Science Education Standards?
Background
In the previous two research questions, results were presented detailing
variations in teacher participation rates, implementation focus, and teacher learning.
This section will report the extent to which PAS teachers addressed the National
Science Education Standards. The data sources were the teacher research applications
and teacher research summary reports. The document analysis framework of Prior
(2003), was used in analyzing the science content of the teacher summary reports and
research applications. A frequency count was made of cases that supplied evidence of
work in the eight NSES.
The National Science Education Standards are grouped under eight broad areas:
(1) unifying concepts and processes, (2) science as inquiry, (3) physical science, (4) life
science, (5) earth and space science, (6) science and technology, (7) science in personal
and social perspectives, and (8) history and nature of science. Students in all grade
bands, grades K-4, grades 5-8 and grades 9-12 are expected to receive instruction in
each of the eight areas. Expectations for what students should know and be able to do
increase in complexity from kindergarten through twelfth grade. The instructional
practices of PAS science teachers included evidence from all eight standard areas.
However, PAS program requirements for the teacher summary reports are focused on
stimulating teacher reflection. Teachers were required to give evidence of how their
instructional strategy worked, not evidence of covering all of the standards. Therefore,
132
teachers selected instructional examples based upon their relevance to the strategy
implementation.
1. Unifying Concepts and Processes
This standard addresses the fundamental principles of science such as the
existence of an external reality that can be observed and measured. It emphasizes the
stance that evidence based reasoning supplies the necessary information to discover the
inherent order and systems of the natural world. Teachers who met this standard
intentionally linked concepts during instruction and created a conceptual framework for
students.
Three PAS teachers supplied evidence that they intentionally engaged students
in developing a logical framework of scientific knowledge i.e. unified concepts and
processes. Excerpts from two of the cases are provided here. In the first example, a
high school teacher described how he utilized multiple resources to teach fundamental
science concepts.
The instructional strategies were effective because it helped to reinforce
scientific concepts and "big ideas" taught in class. These "big ideas" that
students learned were drawn from CPS [Columbus Public Schools] benchmarks,
SLCs, and curriculum guides. (Case 363.1)
This example demonstrates teacher awareness and emphasis upon organizing principles
of science that he labels big ideas. The second example is from a second grade teacher
who presented lessons systematically and explicitly taught the connections from one
lesson to the next.
The talking portion of the lesson began with a "two minute review" of the
previous lessons by referring to the Science Concept/Word Wall. This was a
bright blue science fair display board on which I mounted a colorful outline of
terms, concepts, and applications. The information was carefully arranged to
133
facilitate logical conclusions. I used icons and samples beside the words to help
jog the memories of the students. In the course of the lessons, every time a new
concept or term was introduced, it was added to the display board. Often I
presented new information in the form of a chart or some other graphic
organizer on the overhead and then gave students a hard copy to include in their
science folder. At the end of every lesson, I reviewed the concept board again.
The purpose of the board was to fix an organizing image of the content material
in the minds of the students. (Case 116.1)
This example demonstrates teacher intent to assist students in building an understanding
of the domains of science and the interconnections among the concepts within each
domain.
2. Science as Inquiry
This standard is based upon students learning science through active
participation in the science content areas. Constructing knowledge through inquiry
requires students to ask questions and construct answers through both physical
manipulation of materials and mental manipulation of ideas. In most cases, PAS
teachers only described guided inquiry opportunities for their students. However, one
elementary teacher specifically differentiated between open and guided inquiry.
My students have learned the difference between "cookbook" science and
"inquiry" science. Conducting inquiry science allows students the opportunity to
direct their own learning by developing their own experiment to answer
questions they have developed. Inquiry requires the use of higher-order
cognitive skills. (Case 376.3)
This elementary teacher further explained that her students had one 75 minute class
period per week allocated to science inquiry. Additionally, evidence was found that
PAS teachers employed classroom and small group discourse to support the social
construction of scientific knowledge during inquiry sessions.
Inductive reasoning was used from one science lab activity to the next when we
conducted several experiments on the same unit (bubbles, air and water, etc.)
134
We would use prior knowledge to help us predict what to include in our new
experiment's hypothesis. (Case 491.1)
This sample explains how classroom discourse was utilized to support the inquiry
process.
The next example was from a high school teacher, who employed inquiry
combined with cooperative learning during student laboratory exercises.
Some of these activities included metric measuring, building rockets and
measuring average velocity, acceleration, force and momentum. Groups
constructed roller coasters and examined and calculated forces in their study of
Newton's Laws. (Case 77.1)
The active participation of these high school students while in small groups permitted
the students to support one another’s thinking during the inquiry process.
3. Physical Science
This standard covers the “facts, concepts, principles, theories, and models”
(NRC, 1996, p. 106) pertinent to the domain of physical science. More than 25% of the
PAS science projects referenced a student lesson based in the physical sciences. An
additional 14% of the high school teachers listed a physical science teaching position on
the application, but did not give examples specifically identifying physical science
lessons. In the summary report of a ninth grade teacher (Case 530), student formative
assessment scores were found for the following topics: measurement for accuracy and
precision, flame, ionic compound, molecular swallow, decomposition, and bag the gas.
Another high school teacher specifically identified a physical science topic.
I focused on using activation of prior knowledge, discussion, and argumentation
to assist students in identifying and/or altering their conceptions related to
motion and wave phenomenon. (Case 958)
135
An elementary teacher included physical science topics in her listing of instructional
units covered during science class.
The components were: weather patterns, environmental issues, earth's surface
changes, Newton's Laws, physical/chemical change, simple machines, nutrition,
reactions to changing environment, and lastly process skills. (Case 870)
The next standard for which evidence was found is life science.
4. Life Science
This standard covers the “facts, concepts, principles, theories, and models”
(NRC, 1996, p. 106) pertinent to the domain of life science. Many of the PAS teachers
(17%) referenced student activities related to the life sciences and an additional 12%
listed a life science teaching position on their application. An elementary teacher
related the following classroom discussion which is evidence of life science instruction.
For example: I remember a discussion about vertebrates and invertebrates (also
in field notes). Ann said, "A snake doesn't have bones." Bob replied, "Look at
that chart of reptiles! Snakes are on it. Reptiles are vertebrates." Betty drew a
picture of a food chain. It contained sun and water, plants, a horse and a
mountain lion. (Case 973)
Another elementary teacher described making models of body systems during class.
For SLC [State Learning Competency] 18, the students were learning about the
six body systems. When we were learning about the respiratory system, we
made physical representations of the lungs by using water and sponges. (Case
740)
A high school teacher referenced a collaborative program between the local university
Primate Research Center and area high school students as an opportunity for students to
work together while learning life science.
The Primate Project unit was designed to encourage high school Biology
students to work in cooperative groups. (Case 363.1)
The next standard for which evidence was found is earth and space science.
136
5. Earth and Space Science
This standard covers the “facts, concepts, principles, theories, and models”
(NRC, 1996, p. 106) pertinent to the domain of earth and space science. All six of the
PAS projects that specifically mentioned earth and space related lessons, were in the
elementary grade band. There were and still are very few earth and space middle or high
school science courses in the PAS district. An example of a reference to an earth and
space lesson included this one about a weather unit.
We made a type of word splash when we began our weather forecasting unit,
putting all the terms we knew (or thought we knew) in a particular color. (Case
299.3)
Another example described a lesson about soil composition.
We did a soil sample activity using a cupcake. I received some of the best
hypotheses I had seen all year. (Case 527)
A third example indicated that the students had been studying rocks.
Ted could not name three rocks after we had read, written, drew and discussed
many names for rocks over a period of two weeks. (Case 973.1)
Little information could be discerned regarding the depth or duration of these earth and
space lessons, however, they were important enough to the PAS teachers to include as
good examples of strategy implementation.
6. Science and Technology
This standard defines what students should understand about the similarities and
differences between natural and man-made designs in science. “These standards
emphasize the process of design and fundamental understandings about the enterprise of
science and its various linkages with technology” (NRC, 1996, p. 106.) Only two high
school projects referenced students engaged in designing objects for scientific purposes.
137
The first example was already identified in an earlier section as a good example of a
teacher facilitating open inquiry. This time the case is used to illustrate a student
assignment involving science and technology. The task appeared to be modeled after
cable television programs popular at the time PAS data were collected in which
contestants had to utilize salvaged materials to design useful objects.
The Junk Box Wars lab required students to build a rubber band powered car
and a snowball launcher. (Case 703.1)
The second example was less clear about what the students actually created, but the
guidelines for the contest suggest the same type of outcome. Students were required to
create an object useful in the realm of science.
Students completed portfolios to enter into an annual national contest; the
Explora-Vision Awards sponsored by Toshiba and NSTA. The contest involved
students working to "combine their imaginations with the tools of science to
create and explore a vision of a future technology." (Case 1069.3)
Student Explora-Vision projects may have incorporated goals from the next standard,
science in personal and social perspectives.
7. Science in Personal and Social Perspectives
This standard is directed at developing students into scientifically-sound
decision makers. Students must learn how to apply science in order to make informed
choices regarding the impact of scientific discoveries on public policy. Two teachers
encouraged students to think about ways that school science connected with everyday
living. The first example was from an elementary teacher who encouraged students to
connect school learning with everyday knowledge.
As we study every major concept in the SLCs [State Learning Competencies],
students are required to make connections in writing to their real life
experiences, literature they have read, and news reports, etc. (Case 937.1)
138
The second example was a high school teacher who also encouraged her students to
look for the practical connections between school learning and home applications.
Using the Socratic approach, students make connections with what they have
recently learned to previously learned material. Also I encourage students to
analogize everyday arrangements to the coursework, and vice-versa. (Case
210.1)
Neither of the examples provided address the social justice element of this standard.
Both teachers focused their instruction on connecting school to everyday knowledge on
a personal level. Likewise, little evidence was found to support the next standard, the
history and nature of science.
8. History and Nature of Science
This standard emphasizes the concept that science is a dynamic enterprise and
reflective of the state of current knowledge as well as the social mores of specific
historical timeframes. Advances in scientific knowledge and technology have
contributed tremendously to the health and well being of most people, but not without
marginalizing others. None of the PAS teachers addressed the social consequences and
hurdles of scientific advancement. Only one, a middle school teacher, commented on
the nature of science.
Students gained insight on appropriate responses necessary for extended
response questions and an understanding that the explanation of a scientific
process is as important as the final answer. (Case 968.1)
The lack of evidence supporting instruction in personal and social perspectives as well
as the history and nature of science may be the result of the current high stakes test
environment. These ideas will be developed more fully in Chapter 5 in implications for
classroom practice.
139
Summary Research Question 3
Collectively, the instructional practices of PAS teachers included evidence of
addressing all eight NSES areas. Elementary teachers referenced student work in all
areas except science and technology; and history and the nature of science. The
standards cited most often by elementary teachers were inquiry (n = 8), earth and space
(n = 6), and life science (n = 5). High school teachers provided evidence of working in
five of the standards. The most frequently cited standards were physical science (n
=14), life science (n = 6) and inquiry (n = 4). Two of the middle school teachers cited
four different areas; physical science, life science, unifying concepts and processes; and
history and nature of science. The other two middle school teachers made no reference
to student involvement in a NSES area. In six cases, no evidence of NSES usage could
be discerned.
Research Question 4: Do the Instructional Practices Reported by Teachers Reflect the
Knowledge and Skills Presented in Other Professional Development Episodes Available
to the Teachers?
Background
The first three research questions analyzed the data set for evidence of teacher
participation rates, project focus, evidence of teacher learning, and use of the NSES.
This section will explain the presence of other professional development initiatives in
the classroom practice of PAS science teachers.
During the years that PAS data were collected, the school district had in place a
professional development program that permitted teachers to attend training during the
140
contractual school day. Five days a school year, students stayed at home and the
teachers attended a full day of professional development training of their own choice.
Before the student non-attendance days, catalogs listing the training offerings were
circulated among the teachers to permit advance planning. Sometimes teachers were
mandated to attend specific training, but most of the time teachers were permitted to
make a selection from among 70 different offerings. Each curricular department offered
a suite of choices.
The data sources utilized to determine if the instructional practices of PAS
science teachers reflected the knowledge and skills presented in other professional
development episodes were the teacher research summary reports, professional
development catalogs, and a school district directive regarding classroom observations.
The summary reports were read multiple times and analyzed for evidence of process
utilizing Prior’s (2003) document analysis framework. Coding categories were preselected based upon the school district directive to all administrators. A document was
circulated among district administrators specifying that anyone conducting a Downey
three-minute walk-through (Downey, Steffy, English, Frase & Poston, 2004) record
evidence of particular professional development initiatives such as writing across the
curriculum, use of curriculum guides, and so forth. Appendix C lists these professional
development initiatives and provides a summary of how the terms were interpreted.
Five additional categories were added to track connections to themes in current science
education literature: elements of the conceptual change model, elements of the 5E
Learning Cycle, active student centered lessons, use of classroom discourse and
project/theme based instruction. These 14 categories were selected for use here because
141
they represented substantial professional development within the district, and this
training was expected to influence the classroom practice of PAS teachers.
The research summary reports submitted by the participating teachers were read
multiple times for evidence conforming to the 14 pre-selected categories. A frequency
count of projects that contained evidence consistent with the pre-selected categories was
tabulated. If they had evidence that was consistent with multiple categories, cases were
counted multiple times.
Interpretive Findings
Table 4.3 summarizes the presence in the PAS summary reports of the identified
professional development initiatives. The frequency column lists the actual number of
cases in which evidence was found supporting the strategy listed. The “% usage”
column indicates the percentage of cases in which evidence of the initiative was found.
Initiative
Use of data to drive instruction
Active student-centered lessons
Writing in the content area
Use of classroom discourse
Rubrics or other tools for student self-checking
Student notebooks/portfolios
Use of curriculum guides and /or pacing charts
Focused written practice of short & extended response
answers
Conceptual Change model-elements
Differentiated instruction
Learning Cycle-elements
Use of higher level questioning
Project based/thematic lessons
Cultural relevancy
Frequency N
21
21
19
16
17
14
12
11
10
9
6
6
5
4
% Usage
50
50
45
38
40
33
29
26
24
21
14
14
12
10
Table 4.3. Professional Development Initiatives Present in 42 PAS Summary Reports.
142
The use of data to drive instruction was one of the professional development
initiatives reported most often in the summary reports. This is consistent with a PAS
requirement which was to monitor the effectiveness of their action research through
formative assessment. Its lack in nearly 50% of the reports may indicate that the
teachers either did not fulfill the requirement, or did not value the formative data
enough to mention its use in their summary report. However, the high frequency of
using rubrics or other tools for student self-checking may be the manner in which some
teachers interpreted the mandate to use data for instruction.
The second initiative listed, active student-centered lessons, is consistent with
constructivist practice as reported in the science education literature. Four of the next
highest six categories, writing in the content area, use of classroom discourse,
employing student notebooks/portfolios, and focused written practice of short and
extended responses to achievement test-like questions are consistent with the use of
literacy skills in content area subjects.
Further analysis of the 14 professional development initiatives suggested an
underlying structure of fewer actual strategies. Table 4.4 lists the implemented
strategies grouped by an alternate structure. The frequency column lists the actual
number of cases in which evidence was found supporting one or more of the strategy(s)
listed under the heading. The “% usage” column indicates the percentage of cases in
which evidence of the strategy was found.
143
Initiative
Literacy
Writing in the content area
Use of classroom discourse
Student notebooks/portfolios
Focused written practice of short &
extended response answers
Frequency N
36
% Usage
86
Data
Use of data to drive instruction
(teacher)
Rubrics or other tools for student selfchecking
29
69
Active students
Active student centered lessons
Conceptual Change model-elements
Learning Cycle-elements
Project based/thematic lessons
Use of higher level questioning
26
62
Use of curriculum guides and /or pacing
charts
12
29
Differentiated instruction
9
21
Cultural relevancy
4
10
Table 4.4. Grouped Professional Development Initiatives in 42 PAS Summary Reports.
Nearly all PAS science teachers (86%) incorporated a form of literacy in their
science classroom practice. Writing, whether as responses to practice exam questions,
reflection journals or expository writing assignments had a dominant presence in the
PAS classrooms. Classroom and cooperative group discourse was also utilized to
construct student knowledge. These practices are consistent with teaching practice
aimed at closing achievement gaps for English language learners and marginalized
student groups through improving conventional English language skills (Payne, 1998;
Zehler, 1994).
144
When the original 14 initiatives are grouped into 6 categories, the use of data to
drive instruction, drops to the second most frequently utilized professional development
initiative strand. Sixty-nine percent of the PAS summary reports included information
about using data in the classroom. In some cases teachers utilized data from formative
assessment, but in others, students self-assessed and used the data to modify their own
performance. This practice is consistent with the authentic assessment professional
literature which supports the use of ongoing embedded assessment to plan instruction
(Burke, 2005).
Engaging students in active learning was also reported by a large percentage of
the PAS teachers. Sixty-two percent of PAS science teachers made use of studentcentered inquiry sessions, cooperative group projects, and the social construction of
knowledge through classroom discourse. These practices are consistent with the NSES.
Summary Research Question 4
Qualitative analysis of the teacher research summary reports indicated that
teachers utilized professional development initiatives of the host school district in the
implementation of PAS. The three most frequently reported categories of professional
development reflected in the teacher reports were incorporating literacy strategies, use
of data to inform instruction, and active student engagement. The strong presence of
district professional development initiatives in the teacher summary reports may
indicate the development of pedagogical content knowledge in teachers and validate the
expense and effort of providing strong professional development opportunities.
145
Research Question 5: What Practical Issues Did Teachers Identify as Having an Impact
on Student Science Achievement?
Background
The first four research questions analyzed the data set for evidence of (1) teacher
participation rates and project focus, (2) growth in teacher knowledge and skills, (3) use
of the NSES, and (4) the presence of district professional development initiatives. This
section will report results pertinent to the research questions of the PAS science
teachers. The data sources for information were the teacher research applications and
summary reports. The document analysis framework of Prior (2003) was employed to
analyze the content of what the teachers reported.
One characteristic that separates classroom action research from other kinds of
research is the selection of a research question. In experimental research, the questions
usually emerge from theory or a review of the professional literature. In classroom
action research, teachers identify an area of concern in either student learning or
teaching practice, and develop a plan to solve the problem. The research design is not
bound by invariable treatments and control groups; rather classroom action research is
focused on working with students to improve the climate and outcomes of day-to-day
classroom life. In PAS, teachers were required to give a rationale for their classroom
research. Review of the rationales suggested six themes of practical concern that served
as the organizational point for the science action research projects. These results will be
reported in six sections corresponding to the six themes.
146
Interpretive Findings
Theme 1: Increasing Student Subject Knowledge
The practical concern cited most often by PAS teachers revolved around
increasing student subject content knowledge and/or the development of conceptual
understanding. Sixteen PAS teachers named practical concerns related to student
content learning. For example, an elementary teacher who taught science from an
inquiry perspective employed many kinesthetic activities and provided students with
graphic organizers to record and summarize the data. She stated:
I planned my lessons with a deliberate attempt to include all of the senses in
order to increase the likelihood that the students would form and retain science
concepts. (Case 116.1)
A high school Physics teacher stated that his year long goal was to have his students
enjoy learning and obtain enough knowledge to excel on the Physics End of Course
Exam. To assist student learning, the teacher placed the students in cooperative teams.
In his summary report he stated:
Use of cooperative learning in Physics will allow for students to help peer teach
and provide more effective feedback to the teacher. Students will work in
cooperative groups in a lab setting, in problem solving situations, group quizzes
and unit reviews. Student groups will be rotated during the semester to ensure
mixing of strength and skill levels. These methods will ensure the unit goals are
accomplished in an enjoyable and positive manner. (Case 703.1)
A different high school teacher was very succinct in the knowledge that she wished to
facilitate in her students.
I proposed to enable students to improve their ability to organize ideas about
mechanics (the study of how things move) and wave phenomenon through the
use of surveys to help students get a picture of their own ideas, to use discussion
to enable them to refine or confirm their conceptions, and to use argumentation
to assist students in integrating new or altered knowledge into their cognitive
structures. (Case 958)
147
Theme 2: Raising Test Scores
The second most frequently mentioned area of practical concern was to raise
student scores on state and district mandated achievement tests. Nine PAS science
teachers declared that this was their practical issue. From the school district point of
view, improving student achievement on mandated tests was considered to be the action
part of PAS classroom action research. PAS program documents indicated that PAS
was originally conceived as a school improvement strategy and administered by the
Department of School Improvement in the district. All PAS projects were supposed to
have the goal of raising student test scores, but some teacher-researchers emphasized
test performance more than others.
An elementary teacher of gifted and talented students voiced the concern that
her job was to keep student performance above the required benchmark level.
As a K-5 gifted Specialist, it is my job to help my students achieve the "Exceeds
Benchmark" level on the district SLCs [State Learning Competencies]. (Case
491.1)
A fourth grade teacher shared her thinking about the challenges of passing tests
and the vertical alignment of student knowledge and skills.
My students took the 4th grade proficiency test last year and our school's
passing rate was 56% (29 out of 52). This is an area where improvement is
needed. From my observations since the beginning of the school year, this is an
area where students have many misconceptions. These need to be addressed
before taking the 6th grade test next year. (Case 527)
The next example is from a middle school teacher’s report in which she
combined building student content knowledge emphasizing that the knowledge was to
be used on the proficiency test.
148
I am confident that these simulated experiences will not only enable students to
correctly answer more science questions, but give students background
knowledge that may help them in all areas of the proficiency test. (Case 940)
Theme 3: Constructed Response Replies
The third area of concern is really a subset of raising test scores, but was
particularly identified by 14% of the PAS participants, improving student written
response to short and extended proficiency-type questions. There are typically six
constructed response questions on every state achievement test, four of them are worth
two points each and the other two are worth four points each. Constructed response
answers account for about 33% of the points on the achievement test. Historically,
students in the PAS district simply skipped the constructed response questions,
effectively forfeiting any chance of passing the test. A major initiative was launched in
the district to help students learn how to write answers that would net them the full
amount of points, either two or four, for the constructed response questions. Six of the
PAS science teachers specifically named improving students’ written responses as the
practical problem they planned to solve. In some cases, the PAS intervention strategy
was having students practice writing answers to open response question on a daily basis.
This middle school teacher however combined working on written responses with a
focus on developing content knowledge or conceptual understanding.
Based on the 2001 practice proficiency test, only 26% of the students passed.
After reviewing the practice test, I found that the students did very poorly on the
extended response and short answer questions. I expect that by focusing on
extended response and short answer questions, the students’ science proficiency
scores will increase. (Case 968.1)
The next two examples are from elementary teachers. The first teacher taught using the
strategy of summarizing and note-taking. Students learned to summarize science lessons
149
using quick writes, and then later expanded the quick responses into longer and more
detailed statements suitable for an answer to an extended response exam question. The
second teacher focused primarily upon developing student writing skills to craft exam
question responses.
By choosing #2, summarizing and note taking, as a strategy for focus in the PAS
project, students will develop better written responses. As a result scores on
open-ended responses should increase. (Case 67.3)
[My project focuses on] providing all fourth graders with skills needed for
success on the short answer and extended response portions of the Proficiency
tests in Science and Citizenship. (Case 659.3)
Theme 4: Improving Process Skills
Seven PAS science teachers chose to improve science process skills such as
planning experimental design, developing metacognition, or reasoning from evidence in
science. Through improving these skills, the teachers expected that overall science
achievement would increase. The first two examples are from the work of high school
teachers and the third is an elementary teacher.
Students were required to write their own hypothesis once given a research
question. Then write a replicable lab procedure to test the hypothesis. (Case 530)
The use of cooperative learning groups in the context of problem-based
curriculum promotes the development of metacognitive skills. (Case 1069.1)
Problem-solving in science areas directly impact math and reading proficiencies,
both of which need improvement at the second grade level. (Case 1054.1)
Teaching process skill development in science has been recognized in science education
for years (Shymansky, Hedges & Woodworth, 1990), but some PAS teachers extended
skill development into the social realm.
150
Theme 5: Improving Social Skills
Three high school teachers worked to improve student social skills such as the
development of a sound work ethic, a sense of efficacy, and adjustment to school
expectations.
I chose to use my Biology classes for this study because they are mostly 10th
graders and are at a delicate time in high school. This is the year where students
usually start to see if they are "college material" and can be turned away from
higher education very easily. Low scores and decreased academic success can
lead to dropping out, not graduating, or not pursuing further educational
opportunities. I want my students to feel successful and to be successful. I chose
these three strategies because they are already built into my long-range planning.
All of the below strategies will increase student performance in my classroom.
(Case 210.1)
My goal is to instill confidence in students to help them succeed in science and
in school and in life. I will do this by reinforcing their efforts and helping them
to teach themselves. (Case 877.1)
Our focus in the FSA (Freshman Success Academy) is to help the students
become better adapted to a productive school environment. (Case 1083.2)
Elementary teachers eschewed the development of social skills during science class, but
two focused on literacy skills.
Theme 6: Improving Literacy Skills
Two elementary cases named a practical need to increase student usage and
understanding of science vocabulary words and to utilize content specific words in
expository writing. This goal was consistent with district-wide professional
development offered at the time. One of the teachers summed up their intent:
In the April 2001 Science and Children Magazine, I read an article "A Key to
Science Learning". Using these 'key science words' as cues, science written
answers should be more focused toward communication of the correct science
information. (Case 67.1)
151
Summary Research Question 5
PAS science teachers identified practical issues in their teaching practice or
student achievement weaknesses that could be grouped into six broad areas. Most of the
teachers worked to improve student content knowledge and conceptual understanding.
Many simply said that their research was based on raising student test scores. Other
teachers specifically identified improving written student responses on short and
extended response proficiency test questions. Another common practical issue identified
was to improve student performance of science process skills such as critical thinking
and constructing inquiry investigations. Some teachers emphasized the improvement of
student social skills such as the ability to work cooperatively on science assignments. A
few teachers viewed the path to improved science achievement through increasing
content specific vocabulary and expository writing skills. These six categories
summarize the breadth but not depth of the teachers’ inquiry into personal practice and
student learning.
Research Question 6: What Instructional Practices Did Teachers Utilize with Students
to Improve Achievement on Science Assessments?
Background
The first five research questions analyzed the data set for evidence of (1) teacher
participation rates and project focus, (2) growth in knowledge and skills (3) use of the
NSES, (4) the presence of district professional development initiatives, and (5) research
questions of the teachers. This section will report results of the instructional practices
reported by the PAS teachers.
152
One of the requirements for PAS participation is that teachers must select and
implement at least one research-based instructional strategy in their action research
project. Participants were referred to Classroom Instruction that Works: ResearchBased Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement by Marzano et al. (2001) to select
a strategy on which to base their action research intervention. Marzano et al. (2001)
developed a list of nine broad categories of instructional strategies through a metaanalysis of research seeking information regarding the improvement of student
achievement. Appendix A lists the nine strategies and functional interpretations as
manifest in instructional practice.
Instructional Practice and Student Achievement Results
The data sources for this analysis were the teacher research applications, the
research summary reports, and student achievement records. A frequency count of the
instructional strategies reported by teachers on their applications to participate in PAS
showed that all nine of the Marzano et al. (2001) instructional strategies were
represented. However, it is difficult to surmise a clear picture of the effect of any one
strategy because the teachers were free to combine strategies. Furthermore, as found in
research question 1, individual interpretation of the strategies by the PAS teachers
varied. Table 4.5 lists the nine Marzano et al. (2001) strategies, the frequency with
which they were listed on the teacher research applications, and the resultant success in
student achievement exceeding the school district mean.
153
Strategy
Cooperative Learning
Effort & Recognition
Homework & Practice
Generating & Testing Hypotheses
Summarizing & Note-Taking
Nonlinguistic Representations
Objectives & Feedback
Similarities and Differences
Cues, Questions & Advance Organizers
Frequency
N
12
11
9
7
5
4
4
4
4
% Usage
29
26
21
17
12
10
10
10
10
%
Successful
66
63
55
57
80
75
75
50
25
Table 4.5. Frequency and Success of Instructional Strategies Reported by Teachers on
PAS Applications.
The two strategies most frequently reported by teachers as being used were,
cooperative learning and reinforcing effort and providing recognition. However, three
other strategies had a much higher percentage of participants successful in improving
student achievement: summarizing and note-taking, nonlinguistic representation, and
setting objectives and providing specific feedback.
Throughout the school year, the teachers were encouraged to modify their
original intervention plan based upon student response. Modification during action
research is expected, as the research is envisioned as a cyclical process of plan-actevaluate. One of the writing prompts for the summary report asked the teachers, “What
strategies did you use with your students? How did you adapt the strategy to fit the
needs of your students?” A qualitative content analysis of teacher response to this
prompt was utilized to produce summaries of how the teachers interpreted each of the
nine Marzano strategies. Furthermore, Appendix D lists short synopses of each PAS
project.
154
Interpretive Findings
Similarities and Differences
PAS program documents quantify this strategy as explicitly guiding students to
note characteristics of concepts which permit sorting or categorization. Patterns and
relationships between concepts can then be highlighted which may facilitate conceptual
understanding. Teachers who selected this strategy assisted students in utilizing a
variety of graphic organizers to organize students’ evolving conceptual understandings.
Students used the completed graphic organizers for writing summaries and as a basis for
classroom discourse of the content being studied.
Summarizing and Note-taking
This strategy involves teaching students how to recognize the key points in a
written passage, oral discussion or inquiry episode. PAS teachers interpreted
summarizing and note-taking by having students maintain science journals or portfolios.
Student writing about science content was supported through teacher-prepared outlines,
concept maps, or specific protocols for answering questions. Often, student work was
scored with a rubric for the purpose of formative assessment.
Reinforcing Effort and Providing Recognition
The purpose of using this strategy is to emphasize to students that effort is an
indispensible component of achievement. A challenging more of urban poverty culture
is that in the world of school, teachers do the work while students merely absorb the
knowledge (Payne, 1998). This point of view contradicts research in constructivism and
intentional learning, so some PAS teachers sought to motivate students into active
participation. To that end, many students were required to periodically rate their
155
classroom effort and compare it to their grades. In some cases, teachers arranged public
recognition of student effort by making positive telephone calls to parents, mailing good
news postcards, and giving students tangible rewards such as pencils or popcorn parties.
Homework and Practice
The function of assigning homework to students is to provide practice in an area
currently being instructed. Developing deep understanding of a topic requires both time
and focused practice. Only high school and one middle school PAS teacher selected this
strategy as a means of increasing student achievement in science. Several of the
teachers specifically had the students practice writing answers for short and extended
response proficiency exam questions. Others required their students to answer chapter
check-up questions, write laboratory reports, conduct research for classroom projects or
memorize discrete facts.
Nonlinguistic Representation
This strategy focuses on visual and kinesthetic cues to assist students in
acquiring and understanding information. The three elementary teachers who employed
nonlinguistic representation all interpreted it as having students actively engaged in
guided inquiry lessons. Students recorded observations during the inquiry episodes on
graphic organizers, in pictures, and by constructing models. The middle school teacher
reported using graphic organizers to stimulate student discussion and to assist in writing
responses to proficiency type questions.
Cooperative Learning
PAS documents describe facilitating cooperative learning as grouping students
in various ways to promote positive group interdependence. The intent was to have
156
students accountable for the learning of everyone in the group. More PAS teachers
claimed to be using cooperative learning than any of the other strategies. In practice,
many of the PAS teachers implemented this strategy in a manner consistent with social
constructivist theory. Students were given opportunities to work on inquiry projects
together, engage in small and large group discourse, as well as confer with experts to
obtain needed information. The difference between PAS projects in which students
demonstrated high achievement gain and those that did not, was in teacher commitment
to allow students to engage in meaningful interaction with each other.
Setting Objectives and Providing Feedback
The focus of this strategy is on teachers and students co-constructing a learning
goal on which students receive specific, corrective, and timely feedback about how well
they are progressing toward the goal. In PAS, the goals selected were directly related to
state learning outcomes. Students were taught how to use rubrics to self-evaluate their
work. Students were also taught how to track their success by utilizing criterion
referenced checklists and charts. Teachers provided verbal and written comment to
support the students in achieving the identified goals.
Generating and Testing Hypotheses
This strategy was employed by PAS teachers to assist students in developing
testable questions and engaging in inquiry. PAS teachers who successfully utilized this
strategy emphasized evidenced based reasoning when the students recorded the
outcomes of the inquiries. Unsuccessful PAS teachers emphasized rigid procedural
write-ups over actual inquiry.
157
Cues, Questions, and Advance Organizers
The purpose of this strategy was to activate student prior knowledge and provide
a logical framework for student learning. Only one PAS teacher was successful in
employing this strategy. She chose to emphasize the specific vocabulary of science
content making sure that students understood the terms and how the concepts described
by the terms built upon one another. The other PAS projects employing this strategy
were not focused on science. One was directed at testing, one was concerned with
research, and the third was about the strategy itself.
Summary Research Question 6
All PAS science teachers selected at least one of the nine research-based
instructional strategies identified by Marzano et al. (2001). Most of the teachers
identified more than one strategy. Projects that included summarizing and note-taking,
nonlinguistic representations, and setting objectives and providing feedback had a
higher percentage of students who demonstrated higher achievement than the district
mean on summative science tests.
Research Question 7: How Do the Student Achievement Outcomes of PAS Teachers
Vary?
Background
The first six research questions analyzed the data set for evidence of (1) teacher
participation rates and project focus, (2) growth in knowledge and skills (3) use of the
NSES, (4) the presence of district professional development initiatives, (5) research
questions of the teachers, and (6) instructional practices. This section will report
158
variation of student achievement results. In PAS, student achievement was measured by
student performance on yearly summative science tests. Criterion referenced tests such
as State Proficiency Tests and district created end of course exams were given to most
students. However, a norm-referenced test, the Metropolitan Achievement Test version
8, was used for students who were not required to take the criterion referenced tests.
Improvement was calculated by comparing students’ prior year science summative test
scores to current year summative test scores. In order to calculate a gain from one year
to the next, student scores were converted to z scores and then transformed into Normal
Curve Equivalent (NCE) scores. Both the z score and the NCE transformations were
computed using the school district’s mean and standard deviations, therefore the
resultant NCE was in relation to the school district. The PAS student achievement
records included mean student pretest and post test NCE scores for each PAS case.
The data sources used for this research question were student achievement
records and teacher research summary reports. The quantitative analysis of the student
achievement records was conducted using SPSS, a statistical software program. The
interpretive analysis of the teacher summary reports was conducted using the document
analysis framework of Prior (2003).
Quantitative Results
The 42 cases analyzed represented 36 different teachers, as six teachers
participated multiple years, and included 1320 students. Each participation episode of
the six teachers who participated twice was counted independently. In all six cases of
multiple-year participation, the first year of participation was 2001-2002, and the
second year of participation was 2003-2004. Even though the projects had many
159
similarities between the two participation episodes, the students and context were
different and so the episodes were counted separately.
The success criterion in PAS was that the mean student achievement gain of the
PAS teacher’s sample had to exceed the school district mean gain by one Normal Curve
Equivalent (NCE). Student achievement gain was calculated by identifying the prior
year science summative test score and the current year science summative test score for
each student in a teacher’s sample and then computing a simple class-mean gain. In
most cases, dissimilar assessments in adjacent grade levels necessitated conversion of
student raw scores to z-scores. The z-score is the number of standard deviation units an
individual student’s raw score is above or below the school district mean. It has a oneto-one relationship with the standard deviation unit; one z-score unit equals one
standard deviation unit. On the z-score scale the mean is set at zero. The z-score is
calculated by taking the raw score for a student, subtracting the district mean (average)
of all student scores and dividing by the district standard deviation on the assessment.
For example: z-score = (student raw score – district mean) /district standard deviation.
Therefore in this case, z-scores reflect how far student scores deviate from the school
district mean. Student z scores were further converted to NCE for reporting. The NCE is
calculated by multiplying the z-score by 21.06 and adding 50. That is: NCE = (z-score x
21.06) + 50.
Table 4.6 summarizes the achievement outcomes of the teachers by school level:
elementary (ES) K-5, middle school (MS) grades 6-8, and high school (HS) grades 912. Twenty-three cases had a mean student achievement gain exceeding the district
average gain by one NCE. These data seem to indicate that middle and high school
160
PAS participants had an equal chance of producing gains greater or less than the district
average. In middle and high school, 50% of the cases scored higher and 50% scored
lower that the district average. The elementary teachers however, had greater success;
61% of the cases scored higher than the district average.
School Level
N
ES
MS
HS
Total
18
4
20
42
N at School Level
Demonstrating Achievement
Gain > District
11
2
10
23
% at School Level
Demonstrating Achievement
Gain > District
61%
50%
50%
55%
Table 4.6. Student Achievement Outcomes by School Level.
Evaluating student achievement by comparing performance to a set standard, in
this case exceeding the district mean gain, can sometimes mask the practical value of
that achievement due to marked differences in sample size. In PAS, classroom sample
sizes typically were less than 30, but were compared to the entire population (all
students in the school district that took the same spring to spring assessments) which
averaged 4,500 students per grade level. Therefore, differences in variability had a
greater impact on the classroom means than on the district. One way to ameliorate this
problem is to calculate an effect size, which is a measure of the magnitude of the
treatment independent of the sample size. An effect size is calculated by dividing the
difference between the pretest and posttest scores by the standard deviation value
obtained from a paired samples t test (Rosenthal, 1991).
To calculate an effect size for the total PAS science teacher sample, pretest and
posttest means and standard deviations were obtained by compiling the pretest and
posttest NCE scores for each PAS case onto a spreadsheet. These data were analyzed by
161
running a paired samples t test using SPSS. The resulting pretest and post test overall
means of the individual project means and standard deviation were used to calculate an
overall effect size. The process was repeated for each school level to permit
disaggregating the outcomes.
Table 4.7 displays the results of calculating an effect size for each school level.
School level
N
Mean NCE Gain
ES
MS
HS
Total
18
4
20
42
5.32
3.47
2.19
3.65
SD
Paired t
7.00
4.21
9.24
7.96
Effect Size
d
.76
.82
.24
.46
Table 4.7. Effect Size by School Level.
Using the interpretation scale suggested by Cohen (as cited in King & Minium, 2003)
an effect size of .20 may be viewed as small, .50 viewed as medium, and .80 considered
large. Results indicate that for the 42 cases analyzed, PAS teachers engaged in
classroom action research may have had a medium effect on increasing student science
achievement. Disaggregating the effects by school level shows that elementary and
middle school teachers may have had a medium to high effect; high school teachers
may have had a small effect on improving student achievement.
Interpretive Findings
A qualitative analysis of the teacher research summary reports was conducted to
collect teacher reported evidence of student growth. One of the Summary Report
writing prompts was, “Give examples of how your strategy was or was not successful
with your students.” Data collected from teacher response to this prompt indicate that
student growth was reported either as percentage increases on criterion reference tests
162
or as rich anecdotal evidence. An example of a high school teacher comment involving
increased test scores was:
The class I chose to focus my PAS study on had 52% of the students passing the
science portion of the first practice test and only 36% passing science on the
second practice test [the second test was the new Ohio Graduation Test, not the
Ohio Proficiency Test that was first practice test]. The science class that I
selected to concentrate this study on had 21 out of 25 pass the science section of
the Ohio Proficiency Test, which is an 84% pass rate. (Case 873)
The anecdotal evidence was quite varied but linked to the overall focus of the project.
Data pertinent to the first research question indicated that the focus of PAS science
projects varied among fives emphases: science oriented, strategy improvement, testing
focus, literacy interpretation, and controlled research. Teachers whose projects had a
pronounced science content focus tended to report evidence of student growth in terms
of increased content knowledge or conceptual understanding. An elementary teacher
reported evidence of student growth in terms of integrating science content knowledge
with other learning situations.
For most students a multi-sensory non-linguistic approach to science was very
well received. They energetically participated even though science was relegated
to the final period of the day. The regular classroom teacher reported to me that
the students made connections from science class during other lessons during
the day, notably reading. Apparently, the science lessons provided much needed
background information necessary to make meaning from the selections used
during reading instruction. The library assistant informed me that some of the
students requested books related to our science lessons. Independent student
drawings often were of concepts introduced during science. These examples
indicate student-initiated integrations of concepts throughout the curriculum.
(Case 116.1)
Another elementary teacher commented on students’ increased knowledge and skills in
conducting inquiry.
As the year progressed, the children became better able to collect and record
data. By year's end, the small groups were able to formulate plans to accomplish
163
their tasks, due in no small part to their ability to work in a systematic manner.
(Case 1054.1)
PAS teachers who implemented strategy oriented projects interpreted PAS as an
opportunity to learn a new teaching strategy, in essence, improving their own
pedagogical knowledge. Student learning reported by these teachers referenced student
compliance with the strategy components. A high school teacher reported:
I have maintained the strategy of having my students rate their effort for the
week as part of their warm-up on Friday. About 50% of my students wrote at the
end of the year that this helped them to consider what they had done that week
and so they could try to improve next week. (Case 332.3)
A second high school teacher reported disappointing student compliance with the
strategy.
Students who succeeded in organizing their notebooks and maintaining their
grade logs performed well on building level measures. However, other students
refused to maintain their notebooks and did not earn good grades. The strategy
of receiving homework was not effective in most classes. Only the students who
were conscientious about their grades would complete the assignment at home.
Those whose grades were average or below, would not complete the assignment
or leave it on the classroom desk. (Case 855.1)
Teachers whose projects were focused on improving student test taking skills
reported student learning in terms of student progress answering exam questions. An
example of an elementary teacher response was:
I saw that students gained confidence in their written responses to Proficiency
formatted short answer/extended response questions, and in organizing
information in a useful manner. (Case 659.3)
The teacher also noted improvements in student confidence to answer test questions. A
high school teacher, however, elaborated on student improvement on both performancebased assessments as well as specific sections of the proficiency exam.
164
I noticed an improvement of students' answers to proficiency type questions on
the criterion-referenced tests. Students performed much better on the
performance-based assessments. Students also performed better in the Physical
Science portions of the proficiency test because of the curriculum. (Case 127)
Results indicated that literacy oriented projects were directed at improving
student skill in nonfiction writing. Student progress was measured in terms of
improvement in crafting constructed response answers to proficiency type questions or
writing informational essays. The first example offered describes student progress in
terms of attempting to answer questions and not leaving questions blank.
It was evident as I graded the tests that unlike the first quarter's test, in which
some students left the written response questions blank, scores went up as
students began to get partial credit or full credit as they attempted to write
answers. (Case 521.3)
The second example also shows student progress measured in terms of meeting interim
steps on the path to proficiency.
At the start of the year, the students' quality of writing was fairly weak,
however, if the main idea was expressed in writing or orally, I gave satisfactory
marks. By mid-year, I saw a big change in the content of the student work. (Case
896)
Both of these elementary teachers were concerned with teaching students how to write,
and perceived science content to be supporting information for crafting a written
response.
Two of the high school PAS projects were oriented toward experimental
research. The two teachers referred to student learning as performance in relation to the
experimental treatment. In the first example, the teacher was nonspecific about what
counted as student progress.
I used the strategy with three chapters and compared the results to three chapters
without using the strategy. I purposely alternated the use of the strategy and I
165
found evidence that when students were taught using the Homework and
Practice strategy, they were most successful. (Case 855.3)
In the second example, the expected knowledge was explicit.
The pre and post data results indicate that students need more discussion and
argumentation opportunities related to the concepts of the nature of light, the
geometry of convex lenses, and the characteristics of pendulum motion. (Case
958)
Teachers also commented on student learning as growth in social skills.
Comments on social skill development emerged in some projects that enacted
cooperative learning or reinforcing effort and providing recognition. A middle school
teacher tied growth in social skill to growth in academic achievement. She commented:
I saw lots of student growth over the year. I didn't hear, "I can't work with that
person!" after the first few cooperative experiences. I was surprised to see some
of the large increases in percentage of points earned on written response
questions [from the September practice test to the January practice test]. (Case
940)
A high school teacher noted a decline in classroom discipline problems and attributed it
to his application of reinforcing effort and providing recognition for appropriate work at
school.
Student behavior problems also dramatically reduced for me during the second
semester. I believe the dramatic change was due to the fact that most [of the]
implementation of these educational strategies was in full effect by the start of
the second semester. (Case 1083.2)
Teachers did not comment frequently on improved social skills, but when they did it
was attributed to their strategy implementation.
Summary Research Question 7
Student achievement was found to be higher than the district average in 61% of
the elementary PAS science projects and 50% of the middle school and high school
166
projects. However, impressive effect size scores were calculated for elementary (.76)
and middle school (.82) students. Teacher comments on what counted as student
learning paralleled the categories found in Research Question 1. Teachers reported
student learning in terms of science knowledge, strategy knowledge, test-taking skills,
literacy skills, or a fulfilling research hypotheses.
Research Question 8: How Do Program Requirements Influence Implementation?
Background
The first seven research questions analyzed the data set for evidence of (1)
teacher participation rates and project focus, (2) growth in knowledge and skills (3) use
of the NSES, (4) the presence of district professional development initiatives, (5)
research questions of the teachers, (6) instructional practices, and (7) variation of
student achievement results. This final section will report results on how program
requirements influenced implementation. The data sources were PAS participation
records, the teacher research summary reports, and the PAS guideline booklets from the
three years data were collected. Data were qualitatively analyzed using Prior’s (2003)
document analysis framework which includes analysis of content, production, and
consumption. The production portion of the framework focuses on conditions present
during the event described by the document that may have influenced the outcome. The
analysis for this final question considered circumstances precipitated by the PAS
program requirements on the teacher implementation.
Teachers who voluntarily participated in PAS were subject to a few inviolate
parameters. Participants were required to identify a student sample, an academic area of
167
need, and a research-based instructional strategy to employ as an intervention. The
information had to be submitted on an application by a specified deadline. Throughout
the school year, teachers implemented their projects and collected formative assessment
data to modify their instructional interventions based upon student response. At the end
of the school year, teachers gave students the district level summative assessment and
wrote a research summary report. If the teachers complied with all program parameters
and their students’ demonstrated a mean achievement gain greater than the school
district, then the teachers were eligible for a cash award. These program rules impacted
teacher implementation in two ways: (a) successful interaction with students, and (b)
eligibility for the PAS award stipend.
Interpretive Findings
Interaction with Students
PAS was originally envisioned as a school improvement program in which
teachers would devise unique intervention plans to raise student achievement in state
accountability subject areas. After the teachers made their selections of student sample,
accountability area, and strategy, they were not permitted to change. Working with the
idiosyncrasies of their student/subject selections was the intended challenge. Six themes
emerged from the summary reports that indicate teachers encountered challenges in
dealing with the following conditions: diverse student learning needs, curriculum
constraints, scheduling limitations, poor attendance, testing issues, and student
motivation. Data supporting each of these six themes will be discussed next.
168
Diverse student learning needs.
The PAS school district was large, urban, and public. The school population was
diverse in terms of ethnicity, socioeconomic status, academic skill, and English
language competency. During the data collection school years there were approximately
60,000 students enrolled in the district; 71% of the students were classified as
economically disadvantaged, 70% were non-white, and 15% had disabilities. Despite
this complex social milieu, high academic expectations were held for every student.
Teachers commented on the challenges that this presented.
[I had a] diverse population of students from GT (gifted and talented), regular,
LD (learning disabled), and ESL (English Second Language) fourth graders.
(Case 67.3)
We were still "tracking" our students, and my three sections of science were
very different in terms of vocabulary skills and background knowledge. (Case
299.3)
In three of the classes, many outside factors including inclusion of special needs
students, immaturity, truancy and inappropriate socializing led to changes in the
daily lessons. (Case 855.1)
Prior to January, I was finding it hard to use some of the strategies with my
students, such as the use of physical representations, because they were very off
task. (740)
Teachers attempted to mitigate these challenges by employing their research-based
instructional strategy. Teacher reported growth in teaching knowledge and skills
indicated that the teachers learned to adapt the strategies to match the needs of their
students.
Curriculum constraints.
Another challenge that teachers faced was complying with school district
curriculum mandates. The PAS district based its curriculum on the State Learning
169
Competencies which were intended to make sure that students received a thorough and
balanced education from grades K-12. In addition, strict pacing charts were enacted to
encourage a timely coverage of the curriculum. Teachers who focused on individual
student needs, found compliance with the curriculum guides a challenge. An example of
a high school teacher who thought that greater course variety would meet the needs of
students better is given below.
I still, however, disagree with the school district thinking of putting all students
in Biology rather than having other choices like Unified 10. Students would be
better served if they had another alternative other than Biology. The new
textbook (Modern Biology) provides some difficult reading for the below
average student and in some ways turns them off. (Case 1080.1)
A different high school teacher thought that the required end-of-course exam was
unfair.
I also feel that a different district level test needs to be developed for block
schedule schools. Of the 32 questions on the district level physics test form B,
the third short answer question and questions 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 28, and
29, or 37.5% of the questions, related to areas I did not have the time to cover.
Consequently, I feel that my students did not perform as well on these questions
as possible. (Case 703.1)
Scheduling limitations.
The cause of the unfair exam complaint was based on a scheduling problem. In
some high school cases, block scheduling caused the curriculum to become compacted
beyond the capability of students to engage with the content. Students taught in block
scheduling had class periods twice as long as normal, but the courses lasted only one
semester. One teacher observed that students became overwhelmed when several
teachers each gave double assignments.
I realized and expected that at least part of the problem was the difference in
schedules [from previous years]. This year, all of my students had three other
170
equally demanding core subject teachers at the same time. Last year they only
had one. (Case 332.3)
Another high school teacher was concerned about how detrimental student absences
were to achievement under block scheduling.
With block scheduling we need to cover a chapter every 4 to 5 school days in
order to stay within our timeline and cover the appropriate units. This puts a
huge relationship of attendance to class success. (Case 1080.1)
In elementary school cases, scheduling NCLB mandatory reading and mathematics
instructional blocks limited the amount of time available for teaching science.
Students only received 90 minutes a week of science instruction. (Case 376.1)
Poor attendance.
High school teachers reported the necessity to adjust instruction to accommodate
poor student attendance patterns. In some cases, the students were chronically tardy, but
in others they were absent. In classrooms working in cooperative groups, missing
students disrupted the work flow as evidenced by this teacher.
Poor attendance by some students impacted group activities and required
regrouping or individualized attention including independent work. (Case 77.1)
Teachers who had class periods on either end of the school day attributed student
attendance problems to the time of the day.
Since the class was held first block attendance was a major factor. Oftentimes
tardies were the greatest problem. Students coming in late would be unfamiliar
with the necessary concepts to assure group and individual success. (Case 413)
The eighth period Biology class is subjected to poor attendance and incomplete
assignments because it is the last period of the school day so their scores did not
reach the averages of the first period class. (Case 855.3)
171
Testing issues.
In Research Question 1, data indicated that only four PAS teachers focused their
projects on testing, however, all PAS teachers were required to give their students a
district-wide exam at the end of the school year. In the grades taking state mandated
proficiency tests, teachers and students felt pressured to perform well. One high school
teacher commented that the testing pressure impacted her strategy selection.
The pressure of OPT for many students offers another very good reason to focus
on comparing and contrasting in the classroom, as this strategy is highly relied
upon to test proficiency in science. (Case 210.1)
In the grades not subject to state proficiency tests, developing suitable formative tests
was a necessary task for teachers. There were neither commercially produced practice
books nor released test items with which to construct criterion referenced tests. A
second grade teacher commented on the lack of support materials for test construction.
Creating the tests [CRT] was quite a challenge due to a lack of models. Some of
the teaching materials provided by the district (Scholastic, FOSS, or Delta kits)
had suggested assessment items but they rarely conformed to our Benchmarks. I
also had difficulty locating good pictures to use in constructing multiple choice
type questions such as appear on the MAT8. (Case 116.1)
In the early years of PAS when these data were generated, preparing students to take
standards-based achievement tests was a new phenomenon. By emphasizing student
achievement on standardized tests and offering a cash bonus for successful student
scores, PAS was one measure by the school district to encourage teacher acceptance of
responsibility for student scores.
Student motivation.
Student motivation to participate in class and complete assignments was
mentioned as a challenge by PAS teachers at all grade band levels.
172
[At the end of the year] students were not very motivated, and many did not turn
in this assignment. Also, a few students were absent for several days. These
were the same students who did not enjoy science and refused to turn in a
majority of their work. (Case 527)
For some of the students the homework was not successful because they refused
to complete it. (Case 127)
This year, unlike any other I have experienced, it was difficult to obtain and
observe continuous effort and achievement improvement as the year carried on.
Early on, it became apparent that a majority of my students seemed unable or
unwilling to be able to turn in all their completed work and a filled out Binder
Sheet. (Case 332.3)
In each of the preceding three cases, the tone of the teacher comment was negative and
blamed the students for refusing to cooperate. Little empathy for the students could be
discerned from the comments.
Lack of parental cooperation was also discussed by teachers as a limiting factor
in the successful implementation of the PAS projects. However, the next two teachers
described positive interactions with students and persistence in pursuing their PAS
goals.
The biggest problem I encountered was placing so much emphasis on
cooperation from the home. For several students, the amount of cooperation was
marginal at best. Also, only those students who were really self-motivated
followed through with some of the home-based work. Although enthusiasm was
high in the classroom, home activities were often a deterrent to completion of
some children's journals. (Case1054.1)
Parent conferences were not quite as beneficial as hoped. Only a minority of the
students' parents actually showed up for the conferences. Some drawbacks to
this method [telephone calls] were finding working and current phone numbers.
When the problem of not having a working phone arose, a letter was typically
sent out to the child's residence. (Case 1083.2)
PAS teachers varied in their willingness to work through challenges in their action
research projects. Those that were the most persistent, inventive, and responsive to
173
student needs were successful in raising student achievement. Their success will be
discussed in the next chapter.
Eligibility for Award Stipend
In order to become eligible for the PAS cash award, teachers were required to
complete all program parameters and have a mean student achievement gain greater
than the school district. More than a third of teachers who initiated a PAS project were
ineligible to receive the award because they failed to complete the project. If teachers
failed to submit a research summary report, their official participation in PAS was
terminated. Likewise, if teachers submitted a summary report but it was rejected by a
three person reviewing committee, they became ineligible. Their student data sets were
not analyzed for gain. Table 4.8 indicates the numbers and percentages of PAS projects
initiated but not successfully completed.
School level
ES
MS
HS
Total
Enrollment N
28
12
27
67
Non-completion N
10 (includes 2 rejections)
8
7 (includes 2 rejections)
25
% Non-completion
36%
66%
26%
37%
Table 4.8. Non-completion Rates by School Level.
Results indicate that high school teachers completed PAS projects at a higher
percentage rate than either elementary or middle school teachers. Likewise, middle
school teachers completed the smallest percentage of their cases. Possible reasons for
this phenomenon will be discussed in the next chapter.
Summary Research Question 8
Data indicate that PAS program requirements affected teacher implementation
in two ways: (a) successful academic interaction with students, and (b) eligibility for the
174
PAS award stipend. Teachers were not permitted to change student sample,
accountability area, or strategy after applying to participate. Consequently, challenges
to the successful implementation of the instructional strategy had to be overcome.
Teachers reported problems in relation to: diverse student learning needs, curriculum
constraints, scheduling limitations, testing issues, and student motivation. In addition,
program parameters also limited teacher eligibility for the cash award by terminating
participation if an acceptable research summary report was not received.
Chapter Summary
This chapter detailed the findings for eight research questions about the
influence of science teacher classroom action research projects upon student
achievement. Three years of data records pertaining to science teacher participation in
the Performance Advancement System were examined. Data suggested that across
school levels, there were variations in teacher participation rates and general foci for the
projects. However, most teachers reported learning from their action research
experience whether or not their students showed high achievement gains. Among all 42
PAS projects, the instructional practices of the teachers included evidence of addressing
all eight NSES areas. In addition, PAS science teachers included major school district
professional development initiatives in the areas of literacy, use of data to inform
instruction, and active student engagement. PAS teachers chose to research an array of
practical classroom issues, but most of the projects dealt with either increasing student
subject content knowledge or raising student achievement test scores. Teachers utilized
combinations of research-based instructional strategies in their action research, but the
cases that employed summarizing and note-taking, nonlinguistic representations or
175
setting objectives and providing feedback, had a greater percentage of high achieving
student samples. Overall, students of PAS teachers were reported to have higher science
achievement standardized test scores than the average student population in the PAS
district. Finally, program requirements were found to impact successful teacher
implementation of PAS in terms of creating avenues for productive interaction with
students and getting credit for their work.
The next chapter will discuss possible theoretical connections between the data
presented in this chapter and data previously reported in the professional literature. In
addition, implications and suggestions for further research will be made based upon the
findings reported here.
176
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter discusses the findings of chapter four and situates these findings in
previous research on professional development in science education in general and
classroom action research in particular. This discussion is presented in five sections.
The first section examines present results in terms of current research in science
professional development. Section one is divided into four subsections that parallel the
four areas of professional development identified by Loucks-Horsley et al. (2003) and
reports findings in student learning, teacher learning, teaching practice, and
organizational support. The second section compares present findings to previous
findings in classroom action research with an emphasis on student achievement.
Implications for professional development and classroom practice in science are
presented in the third section. Specific program additions for the action research
program evaluated will also be discussed in section three. The fourth section contains
recommendations for additional research. Finally, section five reviews limitations of the
study.
Professional Development
Working in the unsettled environment of modern education necessitates a
system for keeping teacher knowledge and skills current (Butler, Lauscher, JarvisSelinger & Beckingham, 2004.) Implementing recommended curricula, which
177
frequently change due to dynamic political agendas, while meeting the academic needs
of an increasingly diverse student population requires teachers to be life-long learners.
The institutionalized means of teaching inservice teachers is called professional
development. Models of professional development differ by the principle method of
enactment. Loucks-Horsley et al. (2003) defined high quality professional development
as possessing four attributes: increases student learning, enhances teacher learning,
improves teaching practice, and supports organizational and professional goals in
sustaining excellence in teaching. The program outcomes of the Performance
Advancement System (PAS), the teacher action research program evaluated in the
present research, are consistent with the attributes identified by Loucks-Horsley et al.
Student Learning
One of the goals of PAS was to increase student achievement. As reported in
chapter four, the results of this research indicate that student learning in science was
positively impacted in 61% of the elementary cases and 50% of the middle and high
school cases. The effect sizes of those gains were quite high for elementary (.76) and
middle school students (.82) but small for high school students (.24). Factors that may
have contributed to high student achievement were the selection of a problem area
within the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) having a research focus
on science goals, and working toward improving student subject knowledge. The
combination of standards, goals and objectives may be termed the instructional focus of
the project. Instructional focus findings indicate a marked difference between cases that
were successful in generating high student achievement and cases that did not.
Successful cases tended to have an instructional focus that included improving student
178
content knowledge and teaching for conceptual understanding. Data collected in this
study indicated that 75 percent of the cases selecting improvement of student content
knowledge as a practical issue to resolve generated high student achievement. Likewise,
100 percent of the cases having an overall focus on developing conceptual
understanding and promoting student inquiry obtained high student achievement. For
cases reporting usage of the eight NSES, no discernable difference was found for
student achievement among the eight standards; however, teachers who reported
teaching NSES fared much better than teachers who did not report evidence of
employing NSES. Instructional focus based in the NSES has been found to raise student
achievement by other researchers as discussed below.
The findings in the present study are consistent with the work of Kahle et al.
(2000) who found that students in the classrooms of teachers who had participated in
professional development emphasizing standards-based teaching scored higher on the
Discovery Inquiry Test than students in a matched sample. The Discovery Inquiry Test
is an assessment modeled after the NAEP assessment. Czerniak (2007) also reported
measurable increases in student science achievement following TAPASTRIES, an
intensive standards-based teacher professional development program. Czerniak found
that higher implementation yielded higher test scores and a cumulative effect of having
multiple TAPASTRIES trained teachers was associated with increased student
achievement.
Very few professional development programs report changes in student
achievement as a result of their implementation (Guskey, 2003). Linking student
achievement to teacher professional development is a significant departure from
179
outcomes normally reported in the professional development literature. Calls for
measuring the effectiveness of professional development through student achievement
have increased in recent years (Borman et al., 2005; Czerniak, 2007; Guskey, 2003;
Kahle et al., 2000; Kelleher, 2003; NSTA, 2006; Sterling et al., 2007.) The results of the
present study make a contribution toward documenting effective professional
development through increased student achievement.
Teacher Learning
When viewed through a constructivist theoretical framework, supporting teacher
learning involves many of the same tenets as student learning. Learners bring a set of
preconceived notions and personal theories to every learning opportunity. Information
is extracted from the environment, compared to what is known, and is either rejected,
accepted as is, or accepted with modification into the learner’s knowledge base
(Bransford, et al., 2000; Loucks-Horsley, et al., 2003; Woolfolk, 2004). When viewed
through sociohistorical learning theory, the key element of constructivism is that
humans construct their knowledge from social interactions with other people, objects,
cultural mores, and social institutions (Wertsch, 1991). All information assimilated is
processed through the lens of prior experience situated in particular social encounters.
Constructivism based on observational learning is based upon two concepts: (a) social
context influences learning through selective reinforcement and, (b) modeling complex
behaviors facilitates acquisition of knowledge as a system of interactive components
(Miller, 2002). Teachers as learners are influenced by their own cognition, their social
encounters, and their observations of others.
180
This research provided findings consistent with teacher learning through
personal reflection, social interactions, and through observation during the inquiry
inherent in action research. In PAS teachers established in writing on their application
what their preconceived beliefs were regarding the knowledge and skills of their
students. Throughout the school year, PAS teachers evaluated student produced
artifacts, planned and delivered lessons, interacted with students and colleagues, and
reflected on the impact of their actions upon student achievement. To the extent that
teachers’ learning reflected the veracity of students’ evolving conceptual understanding,
the subsequent instructional modifications they made were productive. In some cases,
the teacher learning came too late to impact student achievement within the PAS
project. However, teachers commented that the next time they would alter their
instruction accordingly.
This research identified teacher learning in terms of practical applications.
Program parameters required teachers to answer four questions when writing a research
summary report. One of the questions asked the teachers what they had learned [about
how to teach science] and how they intended to implement that knowledge during the
next school year. This question served to prompt the teachers into evidence based
reasoning. Through reflection, teachers were encouraged to dwell upon the outcomes of
their instructional efforts and what action they would take as a result of the knowledge
gleaned from their research.
The knowledge teachers gained was consistent with two of the three domains
by Shulman (1987), pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge.
Identifying teacher learning in terms of pedagogical and pedagogical content knowledge
181
is consistent with one purpose generally associated with classroom action research,
which is to identify and solve questions of classroom practice. Teachers reported gains
in pedagogical knowledge in four areas: strategy refinement, reflective practice,
formative assessment practices, and parental inclusion. The greatest number of teachers
recounted learning improved ways of applying an instructional strategy. What is
interesting about this knowledge is that the teachers constructed it for themselves from
interactions with students. Unlike large scale top-down professional development
training from experts, this learning evolved from reflective practice to match the
instructional needs of the students. Teachers who reported pedagogical knowledge gains
in strategy delivery had great success in raising student achievement scores. Teachers
who disclosed learning about skills such as constructing formative assessment or
working with parents were also engaged in reflective practice. Teacher knowledge
gained through classroom action research is a wonderful example of adult learners
engaged in constructivist learning.
Some of the knowledge gains conveyed by teachers were pedagogical content
knowledge. Five teachers specifically discussed improving their knowledge of
facilitating student inquiry. Six worked on techniques for building conceptual
understanding and three specifically focused on writing-to-learn science concepts.
Concentrating pedagogical knowledge on teaching domain-specific content is consistent
with much current research in science education (Abell, 2005; Justi & van Driel, 2005;
Van Tassell, 2001; van Zee et al., 2003.)
In contrast to gains in pedagogical knowledge and PCK, teacher learning in
terms of subject content knowledge was not supported. No instances of teachers
182
advancing their subject content knowledge were found in the current research. This is a
significant departure from other professional development episodes reported in the
literature. The lack of teacher gains in subject content knowledge may be attributable to
the independent manner in which the PAS teachers conducted their research. PAS
teachers did not receive any content instruction from outside experts, although some
teachers reported content instruction from other professional development. Unlike other
action research cases reported in the professional literature, PAS teachers did not work
closely with university mentors. Elliott (1991) described this type of research as first
and second order action research. The classroom teachers were the first order
researchers and the university mentors were the second order. In cases involving twotier action research, the university mentors often had a goal of increasing teacher subject
content knowledge while the classroom teachers had a different goal for their students.
The lack of reported gain in subject content knowledge may also be the result of teacher
interpretation of the research report writing prompts and researcher interpretation of
teacher written responses. Teachers were not directly asked, “What did you learn?”
Teacher learning was inferred from response to “What overall conclusions can you
draw from [your action research]?”
Teachers who were able to apply their knowledge to good advantage in raising
student achievement may have had a thorough understanding of the context in which
they taught. In addition to labeling three types of essential teacher knowledge,
researchers also placed importance on teachers knowing influences on the social context
of schooling (Loucks-Horsley et al., 2003; Shulman, 1987). Teachers who were able to
navigate the political minefield of school improvement mandates, work with the
183
vagaries of preparing students for testing, and cull the funds of knowledge brought by
students, may have facilitated higher student achievement than their colleagues who
could not manage the context. Those teachers who saw only deficits displayed little
empathy for students or persistence in working with the issues. The teachers who
complained about the lack of student motivation and parental involvement, without
seeking resolution, may have held personal theoretical stances consistent with Coleman
et al. (1966) whose work came to be known as the Coleman Report, and concluded that
teachers have little effect on student learning. Results and findings from the evaluation
of PAS science projects discredit the Coleman Report conclusion that teachers have
little impact on student achievement.
Other researchers have found teacher beliefs negatively impacted by context.
Lee et al. (2004) found that science professional development in large urban districts is
hampered by pressure to prepare for high stakes tests in mathematics and reading. This
pressure leads to a disproportionate amount of instructional time being devoted to
mathematics and literacy. Often, mandatory schedules also included strictly scripted
curriculum which contributed to the excessive time spent on mathematics and literacy.
Lee et al. also reported teacher challenges in supporting English language learners and
students with issues related to high poverty. Banilower et al. (2006) found logistical
challenges in urban districts. Because of their size, urban districts have trouble
distributing information in a timely manner and including all stakeholders in
meaningful training sessions. Due to economic considerations, most professional
development has to occur in large groups, which precludes addressing specific teacher
184
learning needs. Contextual factors that highlight cultural differences between teachers
and students and pit resources against demand contribute to negative teacher efficacy.
Teaching Practice
Teaching as a researcher (i.e. engaging in inquiry through classroom action
research) is a pedagogical reflection of the NSES, Science as Inquiry. Reflection is one
of the key components to successful teaching practice in a classroom action research
paradigm. Reflective practice was evidenced by teachers reporting personal learning
and implementing that learning in the continuous action research spiral of plan-actevaluate. The results of this research supported improved teaching practice in seven
areas: refinement of strategy implementation, reflective practice, formative assessment,
parental inclusion, facilitating student inquiry, supporting student conceptual
understanding, and writing in the content area.
Changes in teaching practice, reported in these seven areas, were consistent with
previous research in teacher professional development. Many different strategies have
been featured in science education research. Rannikmae et al. (2007) worked with
teachers to implement Scientific and Technological Literacy through creation of
instructional materials and lessons. Trendel et al. (2007) also worked with teachers on
implementing a discreet program, Theory of Basis Models of Teaching and Learning.
Butler et al. (2004) investigated strategies contained in the Strategic Content Learning
program. Goodnough (2003) facilitated a teacher action research group in applying
multiple intelligences to science instruction. Questioning techniques were researched by
Van Tassell (2001) and Koch and Appleton (2007). A collection of strategies were
researched by Sterling et al. (2007) in the New Science Teachers Support Network
185
(NSTSN), by Czerniak, (2007) in the Toledo Area Partnership in Education: Support
Teachers as Resources to Improve Elementary Science (TAPESTRIES), and by
Banilower et al. (2006) in the Local Systemic Change through Teacher Enhancement
Initiative.
The second area of teaching practice changes in the present research, studying
practice through reflection, has also been investigated by previous researchers.
Goodnough (2004) and Palinscar et al. (1998) both facilitated learning communities of
elementary teachers who engaged in collaborative reflection on teaching inquiry-based
science. While Chen et al. (2007) worked with a group of intermediate teachers who
reflected on their practice utilizing videocases. A video case is one or more classroom
videos plus all of the related teacher and student artifacts generated from the lessons
recorded on the video. van Zee et al. (2003) also used classroom video in addition to
other data sources, in facilitating reflective practice in a teacher researcher group that
was studying teaching through inquiry.
In the present study, teachers reported changed practice in teaching students
through inquiry by inquiring into their own practice. In findings published by previous
researchers, the students who learned through inquiry were teachers, not children. For
example, four sets of researchers engineered inquiry learning episodes for teachers for
the purpose of increasing subject content knowledge (Grove & Dixon, 2007; Kahle et
al., 2000; Morrison & Estes, 2007; Wee et al., 2007.) The expectation for each set of
researchers was that if teachers learned subject content through inquiry, they would in
turn teach their own students subject content through inquiry. Employing inquiry
instruction had mixed results for both the previous researchers and the teachers in the
186
present research. Instruction based on student inquiry may not be enough to guarantee
high student achievement or changes in teacher classroom practice.
A common theme throughout the teacher practices reported in the present
research was devising schemes to assist students in processing scientific facts,
procedures and processes into complete scientifically accurate concepts. PAS teachers
employed a wide variety of techniques such as, graphic organizers, student notebooks of
teacher prepared notes, portfolio collections, advance questioning to establish prior
knowledge, and classroom discourse. Research in teaching practices to help students
develop conceptual understanding was also found in previously published literature. For
example, Valanides et al. (2003) and Justi and vanDriel, (2005) investigated the use of
visual and concrete modeling to assist students in conceptualizing chemical reactions.
Akerson and Abd-El-Khalick, (2003) relied on model teaching, reflective questioning,
and direct instruction to help an elementary teacher fully grasp the concepts related to
the nature of science. Cavicchi et al. (2001) experimented with providing open inquiry
experiences for teachers to help them learn concepts related to light and shadow. In the
present research, success varied in raising student achievement by using schemes to
assist students in developing conceptual understanding.
Organizational Goals
The fourth element of high quality professional development identified by
Loucks-Horsley et al. (2003) involves linking professional development outcomes
within an organization to promote and sustain reform initiatives. This research provided
findings that PAS supported major themes of previous school district professional
development initiatives. Data indicated that teachers incorporated various literacy
187
strategies, using data to drive instruction, facilitating active student learning, and the use
of curriculum guides and pacing charts in interpreting the Marzano et al. (2001)
strategies.
The reported use of professional development objectives in actual classroom
practice was positive albeit unexpected. Some researchers report that despite elaborate,
expensive, and lengthy professional development programs, teachers do not implement
the professional development objectives into practice (Grove & Dixon, 2007; Lee et al.,
2004; Rannikmae et al., 2007; Wee et al., 2007. Grove and Dixon suggested viewing
teacher acceptance and implementation of newly acquired pedagogical knowledge
through the lens of Expectancy-Value Theory. This theory has three components:
choice, expectancy, and value. Teachers have a choice to implement or ignore
information acquired through professional development. In order to choose
implementation, they must believe or expect that they can implement the practices and
also that the practices have value to resolve problems in their practice.
Expectancy-Value Theory parallels the conceptual change model in science
learning (Posner et al., 1982.) In the conceptual change model, learners must first
decide that their conceptual understanding of a situation is inadequate. If a solution is
presented, it must be intelligible, plausible, and fruitful for the learner to accept it.
Recognizing that a problem exists corresponds to the choice phase of Expectancy-Value
Theory. Learners must agree to participate. The second phase, intelligible, matches the
Expectancy-Value Theory stage of expectancy. The learner must understand the words
and meaning of the solution and believe that they can implement it. The third and fourth
phases of the conceptual change model, plausibility and fruitfulness, mirror the value
188
stage of Expectancy-Value Theory. The solution must seem reasonable and likely to
solve even future problems for the learner, in other words, the solution has value.
Findings from the teacher research summary reports established that the PAS
teachers had accepted and implemented instructional strategies acquired in previous
professional development. In terms of Expectancy-Value Theory and the Conceptual
Change Model, the instructional strategies appeared to be valued and used because they
were intelligible, plausible, and fruitful.
Classroom Action Research
Classroom action research is one of seven forms of action research identified by
Kemmis and McTaggart (2003). The distinguishing feature of classroom action research
is that it is focused on solving practical problems of teaching and learning in
classrooms. Like other forms of action research, classroom action research follows a
cyclical pattern of problem identification, planning, acting, and evaluation. Multiple
iterations of the plan-act-evaluate portion of the cycle are enacted until the problem
situation is resolved. Knowledge is acquired through personal reflection and discourse.
Throughout the cycle, emergent knowledge is reinvested into the process for the mutual
benefit of all participants. This component is the action part of action research. There is
a strong moral mandate to immediately implement findings as they become known.
Another element of classroom action research includes personal and prolonged
engagement among the participants. Findings of the present research indicated that
teacher implementation of PAS was consistent with descriptions of classroom action
research found in the professional literature (Calhoun, 1994; Kemmis & McTaggart,
2003; Lewin, 1948; Sagor, 2000). The cyclical pattern of identifying a problem, making
189
an intervention plan, acting on the plan and evaluating the plan was followed by 42 PAS
science participants.
Identifying a Problem
In classroom action research, research questions are derived from practical
issues related to teaching and learning. In this research, six types of practical problems
were identified by the teachers from perceptions of student achievement need in science
class. One of the themes was composed of nondescript plans to raise test scores. Nine
teachers reported unfocused projects aimed at increasing student test scores. Only two
of them resulted in student achievement higher than the district. Four of the themes
dealt with specific skill development: writing responses to constructed response exam
questions, use of science process skills, expanding science vocabulary and expository
writing skills, and developing social skills for group learning. Ten of the skill based
projects resulted in student achievement higher than the district. However, the practical
problem aligned most closely with improving student achievement was to improve
student subject content knowledge. Teachers who focused on this type of practical
concern worked with students to develop deep conceptual understanding. Teachers
addressed misconceptions through oral and written discourse. They made use of
nonlinguistic representations such as model making, drawing, and graphic organizers to
assist students in building scientifically accurate concepts. These teachers also
designated class time for cooperative student inquiry and project-based learning.
Twelve cases that centered on improving student subject content knowledge produced
high student achievement results. Focusing on improving student subject content
knowledge is consistent with some cases of action research facilitated by university
190
personnel with inservice teachers (Akerson & Abd-El-Khalick, 2003; Cavicchi, et al.,
2001.)
Other types of practical research questions found in the professional literature
did not focus on student achievement. Frequent goals were to increase teacher
competence and confidence to teach science (Abell, 2005; Akerson & Abd-el-Khalick,
2003; Berlin, 1996; Goodnough, 2004; Koch & Appleton, 2007; Lewis, 2004; Rice &
Roychoudhury, 2003; van Zee, 1998; van Zee et al., 2003.) Some were designed to
increase teacher content knowledge (Akerson & Abd-El-Khalick; Al-Qura’n et al.,
2001; Cavicchi et al., 2001; Grove & Dixon, 2007; Nichols et al., 2007; Valanides et al.,
2003). Others were designed to be self-studies directed at improved practice (Abell;
Rice & Rouchoudhury; Van Tassell, 2001; Zembylas & Isenbarger, 2002). Action
research projects not linked to student achievement tended to be university based and
focused on adults, not children. Adult learning was documented in the PAS projects, but
the primary goal was to increase student learning. Documenting increases in student
achievement was a major emphasis of this research and a significant contribution to the
literature.
Making an Intervention Plan and Acting on It
The intervention plans devised and acted upon by the PAS teachers were based
upon the research-based instructional strategies identified by Marzano et al. (2001).
The strategies associated with high student achievement were summarizing and note
taking, nonlinguistic representation, and setting objectives and providing feedback. Of
the cases citing the use of summarizing and note taking, 80% had high student
achievement. Seventy-five percent of the cases that used nonlinguistic representations
191
and 75% of the case employing setting objectives and providing feedback also resulted
in high student achievement. This ranking of strategy effectiveness does not match the
results of Marzano et al. who found that the three most effective strategies were
identifying similarities and differences, summarizing and note taking, and reinforcing
effort and providing recognition.
The different ranking in this research may be the result of how effectiveness was
measured. In PAS, effectiveness was determined solely by improved student science
achievement in grades K-12 in a large urban Midwestern school district. Marzano et al.
(2001) noted that their rankings may be limited by the inclusion of studies from all
grade levels, all subject areas, all socioeconomic levels and aptitude. They cautioned,
“The inference that should be drawn from this illustration is that no instructional
strategy works equally well in all situations” (Marzano et al., p.8). In addition to
applying Marzano et al. strategies in a delimited framework, i.e. science instruction in
an urban environment, the teachers tempered their implementation of the strategies with
knowledge gained from previous professional development. Additional strategies linked
to high student achievement were, using data to plan instruction, engaging student in
active learning, and employing various written or oral literacy strategies. These unique
combinations of instructional strategies may have been the key to the PAS teachers’
success in raising student achievement.
Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Plan
Teachers evaluated the effectiveness of their plans through administering short
cycle assessments to their students. These assessments took the forms of criterion
referenced tests and quizzes, portfolio assessments, performance-based assessments, or
192
written assignments that were scored with rubrics. Information obtained from the short
cycle assessments was used to reset the intervention plan before continuing the action
research cycle. Measuring the effectiveness of the classroom action research through
student achievement measures was not consistent with how success in classroom action
research was measured in previous research.
Most of the previous research measured success through grounded theory
methods such as document analysis of journals, lesson plans, or portfolio entries (AlQura’n et al., 2001; Cavicchi et al., 2001; Goodnough, 2003; Roth & Lee, 2004.) Some
of the studies relied on interviews, oral inquiry, or video taped lessons (Abell, 2005;
Gayford, 2002; Lewis, 2004; van Zee et al., 2003.) Other projects used questionnaires,
classroom observation notes, or student artifacts (Akerson & Abd-El-Khalick, 2003;
Capobianco et al., 2006; Zembylas & Isenbarger, 2002.) The underlying theme of most
classroom action research reported in the professional literature is that the goals were
unrelated to student achievement on subject content knowledge tests. Even though most
of the projects would fit with the professional dimension of Noffke’s (1997)
professional, personal, political continuum, the knowledge goals pertained to improving
pedagogical knowledge. Thus, PAS is significant in the realm of action research as
professional development because its success was measured in terms of improved
student achievement, not teacher pedagogical knowledge.
Personal and Prolonged Engagement
Apart from enacting the action research cycle, most PAS teachers also met the
requirement to have personal and prolonged engagement with their student samples.
Teachers enrolled in PAS in the fall and continued their projects through late spring of
193
the same school year. Results indicated that 63% of the teacher participants completed
all portions of the PAS program. However, because this research was modeled after the
ex post facto design, no real time observations were made to confirm the actual amount
of time teachers committed to their PAS projects. The variable completion rates of the
three grade bands may be attributable to differences in teacher commitment to personal,
consistent, and prolonged contact with their students while engaged in their PAS
intervention strategy. High school projects had a completion rate of 74%, and
elementary cases had a completion rate of 64%. However, middle school teachers only
completed 34% of their projects.
A disappointing 37% of the teacher participants initiated but never completed an
action research project. Possible explanations for this high drop-out rate may be teacher
mobility, personal demands, or a misunderstanding of the amount of work necessary to
enact an action research project. Well intentioned plans in the fall may have become
derailed by a lack of teacher stamina, or a perceived lack of support by the teachers.
Lack of completion has been noted by other researchers, Lewis, (2004) also reported
problems with teacher commitment to action research programs.
A different view of why teachers initiated but failed to complete PAS projects
may lie in Noffke’s (1997) assessment of purpose for action research. Noffke noted that
researchers embrace action research for different epistemological reasons: political,
professional, or personal. Researchers with political goals tend to use their research
outcomes for social justice. Researchers, with professional goals, view implementing
action research as a politically “neutral process of knowledge accumulation” (Noffke,
p.306.) The third purpose identified by Noffke is personal,
194
Between these two focuses on political and professional dimensions lies a third
purpose that, for many action research practitioners, is central: the personal. This
emphasis denies neither the importance of political activity nor the generation of
professional knowledge, but it views the main benefits of engaging in action
research as lying in areas such as greater self-knowledge and fulfillment in one’s
work, a deeper understanding of one’s own practice, and the development of
personal relationships through researching together (p.306.)
PAS program drop-outs may have experienced a mismatch between their purpose for
participating and the school district’s purpose in sponsoring the program. The PAS
program documents explicitly state goals for PAS that are professional in nature: to
increase student achievement, identify best instructional practices for an urban teaching
environment, and to disseminate effective teaching practice among other teachers in the
school district. PAS teachers whose purposes were either political or personal may have
chafed at the required guidelines and stopped participating.
Implications
Results of this research suggest implications for three areas: teacher professional
development, classroom practice, and additions to the PAS program.
Professional Development
PAS should be continued as a form of teacher professional development in the
school district. Participation in PAS appeared to be an effective means of professional
development; students learned, teachers learned, practice was modified and connections
were made to the goals of the school district as an organization. However, a high degree
of teacher motivation to participate and a climate of democratic decision making may
have supported this success. The core element of getting teacher buy-in appeared to be
allowing teachers to identify and research a question that had personal meaning. Real
questions resonate with improving teacher knowledge because they start with current
195
understandings and reach for fruitful answers. Implementing the answers to their
questions empowered teachers further to ask more context specific questions. In
addition, the limitation of requiring teachers to employ student achievement data as a
resource in constructing their questions served the purpose of including the goals of the
school district in the questioning process.
It is necessary for teachers to understand the value of questioning their own
practice instead of accepting the criticisms of outsiders. State and federal accountability
systems cannot make allowances for the myriad factors that operate at the local level,
yet must pronounce anonymous judgment upon the work of teachers and students.
Teachers are positioned to interpret governmental mandates for student achievement in
light of local and most importantly, family expectations. Through daily contact, teachers
become aware of the nuances of student subject content understanding and explanatory
frameworks. Assigning meaning to student academic progress can only be done by
someone who knows where the students actually started, as opposed to where they were
supposed to have started. Therefore, teacher questioning in classroom action research is
targeted at progress, not necessarily at achievement.
In order for the learning acquired in classroom action research as professional
development to be utilized and expanded, support structures need to be in place.
Teacher learning developed from data collected over only one school year is fragile and
easily forgotten without reinforcement. Instituting regular oral inquiry sessions for
participants like those reported by Goodnough (2004) and van Zee, (1998) may meet
the structural needs of participants who are new to the process of classroom action
research. Some PAS participants may be encouraged to further develop their research
196
ideas if mentors were assigned to them as in the studies of Justi and van Driel, (2005) or
van Zee, et al. (2003). Still others may solidify their knowledge if graded university
coursework was involved such as were provided by Berlin, (1996) or Capobianco et al.
(2006.)
Challenges noted by the PAS teachers suggest that future professional
development opportunities apart from PAS, should address the complex social context
of teaching science. Identifying and dealing with the cultural, political and personal
theory gaps between student needs and societal demands for high achievement may
have negatively impacted some PAS projects. In the unsuccessful cases, there seemed to
be an underlying lack of teacher efficacy to address the issues of poor attendance, lack
of student motivation, and low level of basic skills. In addition, due to the political
decision of assigning priority to reading and mathematics instruction in the PAS district,
there was a serious lack of student prior knowledge in the domain of science.
Professional development opportunities that acknowledge this gap and supply systemic
guidance for rectifying it are needed.
If the emphasis in reading and mathematics instruction were shifted from
learning how to read and compute, to learning how to apply those skills to learn science,
then higher science achievement may result. Training sessions on the uses of writing
and classroom discourse specifically focused on science education standards may
enable more teachers to take advantage of these effective strategies. The majority of
PAS cases in which student achievement was higher than the district involved the use of
literacy skills applied to science content learning. However, only one of the PAS
science teachers sought to enhance student science knowledge through applying the
197
mathematical skills of measurement and data analysis during inquiry. Teachers and
subsequently students may benefit from the explicit use of applied mathematics in
science instruction.
The continuation of PAS as a year long teacher learning opportunity should be
permitted as the time aspect is consistent with constructivist learning theory. Teachers
who are learning how to improve their practice need time for the hard work of reflection
between teaching episodes. Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1993) stated:
When teachers themselves conduct research, they make problematic what they
think they already know, what they see when they observe their own students as
learners, and what they choose to do about the disjunctions that often exist in
their classrooms, schools and communities. (p.64)
For classroom action research to function as professional development, teachers must
have the opportunity to perceive their own knowledge gaps and work through solutions
that are intelligible, plausible, and fruitful. This process takes time and multiple
iterations of problem identification, planning, acting and evaluating the solution.
Classroom Practice
Based upon the results and findings of this research four implications for science
classroom practice can be made. The first, as already discussed in the section about
student learning, is that science teachers should develop and maintain a clear
instructional focus on science curricula during science class time. Secondly, applied
elements of literacy, written and oral discourse, should be included to assist students in
developing conceptual understanding of the science content. Third, teachers should
monitor the effects of their instruction through formative assessment data to keep
lessons productive by operating within the zone of student existing and potential
198
knowledge. And finally, urban science classroom practice ought to include three of the
Marzano et al (2001) strategies.
A clear instructional focus on science curricula would include a robust
curriculum inclusive of all NSES. Findings in the present study indicated that teachers
who diluted their science instructional time with an excessive focus on test preparation,
social development issues, or other curricular area content standards, were not as
successful in raising student achievement in science. Likewise, effective science
teaching practice was found to include an explicit emphasis upon developing student
subject content knowledge. In the present research, results indicated that an emphasis
upon the development of strategy knowledge in place of specific science subject
knowledge had a deleterious effect on student achievement. Therefore, when student
achievement in science is measured by student performance on standardized tests, good
teaching practice ought to include a clear instructional focus on science.
The second implication for teaching practice involves the intentional use of
written and oral discourse to build explanatory frameworks for students. Teachers who
assisted student knowledge production through guided notes, portfolio construction,
cooperative group projects, and classroom discourse tended to have high student
achievement. Employing literacy as a tool to build understanding also supports an
important teacher role in a constructivist classroom, which is to make explicit the
relationships among factual information discovered through inquiry. This is consistent
with teaching the NSES of Unifying Concepts and Processes which stresses the
connections among the domains of science.
199
The third implication is that science teaching practice should include monitoring
student understanding through formative assessment. Using data to inform instruction is
basic to engaging in constructivist teaching practice and also to conducting an action
research project. Without periodic feedback, teachers would not know the impact of
their instruction and could not plan the next instructional episode or step in the
continuous action research spiral of plan-act-evaluate. Furthermore, teaching as a
researcher, i.e. through inquiry, is a pedagogical reflection of the NSES for students,
Science as Inquiry. Reflection and productive action on formative assessment are key
components to successful teaching practice in a classroom action research paradigm.
The fourth implication that may be drawn from the present research, is that
teaching practice incorporating the Marzano et al. (2001) strategies of summarizing and
note taking, nonlinguistic representation, and setting objectives and providing feedback
was associated with higher student achievement gains. Elements of these strategies have
already been mentioned, but are included here as well to make explicit connections
between the stated and enacted strategies. Teachers who chose to teach students how to
write summaries and take notes made effective use of these applied literacy skills for
developing student subject content knowledge. Teachers who favored the use of
nonlinguistic representations to assist students in constructing conceptual understanding
also tended to foster classroom discourse. Additionally, setting objectives and providing
feedback was enacted through students monitoring their own progress with data
generated by applying rubrics. These findings suggest that summarizing and note
taking, nonlinguistic representation, and setting objectives and providing feedback
might be beneficial to the teaching practice of other science teachers.
200
PAS Program
The necessity for a new kind of PAS support was suggested by the emergence of
the importance of developing and maintaining an instructional focus on science goals as
a key factor in high student achievement. If quarterly PAS research review meetings of
just science teachers were held, the teachers may find ways to focus their classroom
action research to reflect science goals. Inviting the district science curriculum
specialists would add another layer of science focus to the discourse.
A second implication specific to the PAS program is that PAS teachers were not
required to declare a theoretical stance for their research nor were they obligated to
review previous research on their questions. Some of the failed projects may have been
the result of implementing a string of disconnected activities devoid of guiding
principles. This simplistic recipe approach to improving student achievement is a
subversion of the action research model, which calls for purposeful reflection on action.
Overtly providing a theoretical basis for improving student achievement through
classroom action research may assist the PAS teachers in productive reflection on their
selection and implementation of instructional strategies.
Recommendations for Further Research
Results from Research Question 1 revealed a discrepancy between the number
of middle school projects attempted and completed and the number of elementary and
high school projects initiated and completed. Further research into the beliefs and
attitudes of middle school teachers toward teaching science may help to explain why in
three years, only 4 middle school science teachers initiated and completed a PAS
201
project. A related question to low participation of middle school teachers is why do
teachers at any grade level initiate but do not complete a PAS project?
The professional literature has reports of various supports for teachers engaged
in classroom action research. Future research may investigate which of those supports,
discourse protocols during oral inquiry, university course credit and support, or
intensive subject content knowledge support for teachers, etc. are consistent with
improved student achievement scores on standardized assessments.
Review of the teacher research summary reports indicated that most of the
successful projects incorporated some form of literacy, but very little applied
mathematics. Future research may explore the impact of facilitating teachers in using
mathematics to build scientific conceptual understanding.
In PAS, success was measured in terms of gains in student achievement. Future
research may calculate PAS teacher gains using a different progress metric such as
value-added analysis. Some questions have been raised regarding the reliability and
validity of measuring student achievement gain as a simple year to year gain. Valueadded calculations make use of multiple years of student data, which renders a more
reliable measure of student progress with significance at 1-2 standard errors, dependent
upon which value-added model is used.
Some PAS teachers demonstrated a high level of expertise in writing their
research summary reports. Future research may seek to establish links between teacher
experience and highest degree held and high student achievement. It may be found that
teachers, whose projects produced high student achievement gains, have always
produced high student achievement gains. Perhaps participation in PAS is not such an
202
effective professional development tool, but rather an elaborate way to identify teachers
who are already exceptional.
Limitations
The results and findings of this research are limited by the ex post facto research
design. All analyses were conducted on existing data; therefore there were no active
independent variables. The purpose of this research was to seek linkages between
known student achievement data and events that occurred during the instructional
period preceding the achievement tests. The variable of interest was teacher
participation in classroom action research focused on improving student achievement.
Interpretation of the data was done with the knowledge that many other variables could
have impacted student achievement. For example, high influxes of English language
learners into only some school buildings my have put those PAS teachers at a
disadvantage because their students were unable to read the exam questions.
Another limitation of the results is related to the manner in which student
achievement was calculated. Three different tests were used to measure student
achievement, yet no measure of relative difficulty was available. Students in grades 4,
6, and 9 were assessed with state mandated proficiency tests. Students in grades 1, 2, 3,
5, 7, and 8 took the Metropolitan Achievement Test version 8. High school students in
grades 10, 11, and 12 took school district constructed end-of-course exams. Unlike the
MAT8 or the state proficiency tests, the end of course exams had unsubstantiated
reliability and validity. If the high school students had been tested with a different
exam, the achievement outcomes might have been different. Achievement was
measured as simple gain from one school year to the next and was compared to the
203
school district mean gain for the same grade level. The ease of showing a large gain in
one grade level may not have been the same in another grade level.
Another example of a confounding variable is that teacher participants selfselected into the PAS program, therefore outcomes may be the result of peculiarities
within the research sample. For example, the teacher participants were eligible to earn a
cash bonus of $2000.00, so some participants may have enrolled simply for the chance
of earning the stipend instead of actually working toward improved knowledge and
skills.
Much of the data analysis was conducted on teacher research summary reports.
The reliability of teachers remembering and accurately reporting events from the entire
school year may be suspect. In addition, the teachers had to respond to four required
writing prompts when writing their reports. Teacher understanding and interpretation of
those prompts influenced what they chose to write. The classroom examples that they
shared may or may not have been adequate reflections of student response throughout
the project.
Generalizability of the results is limited due to the situated nature of classroom
action research (Feldman, 1994.) Each case was uniquely constructed and implemented
dependent upon the learning needs of the students, the knowledge and skills of the
teachers, and the combinations of intervention strategies selected for use. It would be
nearly impossible to duplicate the same constellation of conditions; therefore the results
may pertain only to the students and teachers who participated. However, if the findings
are accepted in the spirit of historical research, then the findings may have greater use.
Studying people in context is always messy and determining motives and outcomes is
204
imperfect. The validity of this type of research lies in finding consensus from multiple
iterations in diverse settings. “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to
repeat it” (Santayana, 1906). Teachers need to know the history of how science has
been taught to students like theirs if they are to improve upon the past.
.
205
LIST OF REFERENCES
Abell, S.K. (2005). University science teachers as researchers: Blurring the scholarship
boundaries. Research in Science Education, 35, 281-298.
Abell, S.K. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. In S. K. Abell & N.G.
Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp.1105-1149).
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Akerson, V. L., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2003). Teaching elements of nature of science:
A yearlong case study of a fourth-grade teacher. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 40(10), 1025-1049.
Al-Qura’n, M., Haikal, A., Abdel Raze Q, M., Shalabi, M., Fathi, N., AbuGhoush, S., &
Majdalawi, T. (2001). The development and implementation of a sixth grade
geology unit through collaborative action research. Educational Action
Research, 9(3), 395-411.
Appleton, K. (2007). Elementary science teaching. In S. K. Abell & N.G. Lederman
(Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp.493 - 536). Mahwah,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., & Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to research in education
(6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.
Banilower, E.R., Boyd, S.E., Pasley, J.D. & Weiss, I.R. (2006). Lessons from a decade
of reform: A capstone report for the local systemic change through teacher
enhancement initiative. A report prepared for the National Science Foundation,
retrieved May 24, 2007 from http://www.pdmathsci.net.
Bell, B. (2007). Classroom assessment of science learning. In S. K. Abell & N.G.
Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp.965-1006).
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Berlin, D. F. (1996). Teacher action research: The impact of inquiry on curriculum
improvement and professional development. New York: American Educational
Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED397029)
206
Beyer, C.J., Delgado, C., Davis, E.A. & Krajcik, J.S. (2007, April). Investigating
teacher learning supports in high school biology textbooks to inform the design
of educative curriculum materials. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA,
USA.
Borman, K.M., Kersaint, G., Cotner, B., Lee, R., Boydston, T., Uekawa, K., et al.
(2005). Meaningful urban education reform: Confronting the learning crisis in
mathematics and science. New York: State University of New York.
Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (Eds.) (2000). How people learn: Brain,
mind, experience, and school. (Expanded ed.) Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
Burke, K. (2005). How to assess authentic learning (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Butler, D.L., Lauscher, H.N., Jarvis-Selinger, S. & Beckingham, B. (2004).
Collaboration and self-regulation in teachers’ professional development.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 435-455.
Calhoun, E.F. (1994). How to use action research in the self-renewing school.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Campbell, D.T. & Stanley, J.C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs
for research. Reprinted from Handbook of Research on Teaching (1963).
U.S.A.: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Capobianco, B. M., Lincoln, S., Canuel-Browne, D., & Trimarchi, R. (2006).
Examining the experiences of three generations of teacher researchers through
collaborative science teacher inquiry. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(3), 6178.
Cavicchi, E., Hughes-McDonnell, F., & Lucht, P. (2001). Playing with light.
Educational Action Research, 9(1), 25-49.
Charmaz, K. (2003). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N.K.
Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed., pp. 249291). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chen, C. Schwille, K, & Wickler, N.I. (2007, April). The use of videocases in inservice
teacher professional development: the STeLLA project. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching,
New Orleans, LA, USA.
207
Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. L. (1993). Inside outside: Teacher research and
knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cole, M. (1990). Cognitive development and formal schooling: The evidence from
cross-cultural research. In L.C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education:
Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp.89
– 111). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfeld, F., &
York, R. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Columbus City Schools. (2007). Performance advancement system. Columbus, OH:
Author.
Cormas, P.C., Barufaldi, J.P., Fleming, K., & Mezei, J. (2007, April). The effective
research-based characteristics of professional development of the National
Science Foundation’s 1999 GK-12 program. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New
Orleans, LA, USA.
Czerniak, C.M. (2007, April). Context, characteristics, and interactions: Learning
environments, teacher-student and student-student interactions, and factors
related to and/or affecting learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
Dewey, J. (1960). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to
the educative process. Lexington: Heath.
Doyle, C. (2007, April). Lesson study and its relationship to science content. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in
Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Downey, C., Steffy, B. E., English, F. W., Frase, L. E. & Poston, Jr., W. K. (2004). The
three-minute classroom walk-through: Changing school supervisory practice one
teacher at a time. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Duckworth, E. (1987). “The having of wonderful ideas” and other essays on teaching
and learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
Duit, R. & Treagust, D.F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for
improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science
Education, 25 (6), 671-688.
208
Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for Mathematics and Science Education. (n.d.)
Ideas that work: Science professional development. Columbus, OH: Author.
Elliott, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Philadelphia: Milton
Keynes/Open University Press.
Elster, D. (2007, April). Teachers’ voice in school-based initiatives in Austrian schools.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research
in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA, USA
Ernst, K. (1997). A teacher’s sketch journal: Observations on learning and teaching.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Feldman, A. (1994). Erzberger’s dilemma; Validity in action research and science
teachers’ need to know. Science Education, 78 (1), 83-101.
Feldman, A., & Atkin, J. M. (1995). Embedding action research in professional
practice. In S. E. Noffke & R. B. Stevenson (Eds.), Educational action research:
Becoming practically critical (pp. 127-137). New York: Teachers College Press.
Feldman, A., & Minstrell, J. (2000). Action research as a research methodology for the
study of the teaching and learning of science. In A.E. Kelly and R.A. Lesh
(Eds.) Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education
(pp.429-455). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ferrance, E. (2000). Themes in education: Action research. Providence, RI: Northeast
and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory at Brown University.
Freire, P. (2003). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th Anniversary Ed.). New York:
Continuum.
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century.
New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Gayford, C.G. (2002). Environmental literacy: Towards a shared understanding for
science teachers. Research in Science & Technology Education, 20(1), 99-110.
Goodnough, K. (2003). Facilitating action research in the context of science education:
Reflections of a university researcher. Educational Action Research, 11(1), 4163.
Goodnough, K. (2004). Fostering collaboration in a school district-university
partnership: The teachers researching inquiry-based science project. Teaching
Education, 15(3), 320-330.
209
Grove, C.M. & Dixon, P. (2007, April). Research experiences for teachers: Influences
related to expectancy and value of changes to practice. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching,
New Orleans, LA, USA.
Guskey, T.R. (2003). What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta
Kappan, 84(10), 748-750.
Haney, J.J. & Lumpe, A.T. (1995). A teacher professional development framework
guided by reform policies, teachers’ needs, and research. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 6 (4), 187-196.
Hewson, P.W., Kahle, J.B., Scantlebury, K., & Davies, D. (2001). Equitable science
education in urban middle schools: Do reform efforts make a difference?
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(10), 1130-1144.
Hubbard, R. S., & Power, B. M. (1993). The art of classroom inquiry: A handbook for
teacher-researchers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Hunt, D. E. (1978). Inservice training as persons-in-relation. Theory into Practice,
17(3), 239-244.
Hurd, P. D. (1986). Issues linking research to science teaching. National Science
Teachers Association: San Francisco (ERIC Document reproduction Service No.
ED271293)
Justi, R., & van Driel, J. (2005). A case study of the development of a beginning
chemistry teacher’s knowledge about models and modeling. Research in Science
Education, 35, 197-219.
Kahle, J.B., Meece, J. & Scantlebury, K. (2000). Urban African-American middle
school science students: Does standards-based teaching make a difference?
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 1019-1041.
Kelleher, J. (2003). A model for assessment-driven professional development. Phi Delta
Kappan, 84(10), 751-756.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2003). Participatory action research. In N.K. Denzin, &
Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed., pp. 336-396).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kennedy, M. M. (1991). An agenda for research on teacher learning. (NCRTL Special
Report). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement
(ED). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 331 806)
210
King, B. M. & Minium, E.M. (2003). Statistical reasoning in psychology and
education. (4th edition). USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Knight, S.L. & Wiseman, D.L. (2005). Professional development for teachers of diverse
students: A summary of the research. Journal of Education for Students Placed
at Risk, 10(4), 387-405.
Koch, J. & Appleton, K. (2007). The effect of a mentoring model for elementary
science professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(2),
209-231.
Kock, N. F., McQueen, R. J., & Scott, J. L. (n.d.). Can action research be made more
rigorous in a positivist sense: The contribution of an iterative approach.
Retrieved May 2, 2004, from Southern Cross University, Australia Web site:
http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arr/arow/kms.html
Krockover, G.H. & Carleton, L.E. (2007, April). Changes in teachers’ context beliefs
about teaching science during a year long in-service teacher education
program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for
Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of AfricanAmerican children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Larson, J. O., Mayer, N., Kight, C., & Golson, C. (1998). Narrowing gaps and
formulating conclusions: Inquiry in a science teacher action research program.
San Diego, CA: National Association for Research in Science Teaching. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED417976)
Lather, P. (2001). Validity as an incitement to discourse. In V. Richardson (Ed.)
Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 241-250). Washington, DC:
American Educational Research Association.
Lather, P. & St. Pierre, B. (2005). Postpositivist new paradigm inquiry. (Available in
the university course packet for Introduction to Qualitative Research in
Education (ED P&L 800), The Ohio State University, College of Education and
Human Ecology, Columbus, OH, 43210)
Lawson, A., Abraham, M. R., & Renner, J. W. (1989). A theory of instruction: Using
the learning cycle to teach science concepts and thinking skills. (Monograph
No.1). Manhattan, KA: National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
Lee, O. Hart, J.E., Cuevas, P. & Enders, C. (2004). Professional development in
inquiry-based science for elementary teachers of diverse student groups. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching 41(10), 1021-1043.
211
Lewin, K. (1948). Action research and minority problems. In G. W. Lewin (Ed.),
Resolving social conflicts (pp. 201-216). New York: Harper and Brothers.
Lewis, M. E. (2004). A teacher’s schoolyard tale: Illuminating the vagaries of practicing
participatory action research (PAR) pedagogy. Environmental Education
Research, 10(1), 89-114.
Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (2003). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and
emerging confluences. In Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.) The landscape of
qualitative research theories and issues (pp. 253-291). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Llewellyn, D. (2002). Inquire within: Implementing inquiry-based science standards.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press
Loevinger, J. & Blasi, A. (1977). Ego development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Publishers.
Loughran, J.J. (2007). Science teacher as learner. In S. K. Abell & N.G. Lederman
(Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp.1043-1065). Mahwah,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K.E., Mundry, S., Hewson, P.W. (2003).
Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics
(2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Marzano, R.J., Pickering, D.J. & Pollock, J.E. (2001). Classroom instruction that
works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Masters, J. (1995). The history of action research. In I. Hughes (Ed.), Action research
electronic reader. Retrieved May 18, 2004, from the University of Sydney,
Australia Web site:
http://www.behs.cchs.usyd.edu.au/arow/Reader/rmasters.htm
McKernan, J. (1996). Curriculum action research: A handbook of methods and
resources for the reflective practitioner (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page.
McTaggart, R. (1991). Action research: A short modern history. Geelong, Victoria,
Australia: Deakin University Press.
Meyers, E., & Rust, F. (2003). How we do action research. In E. Meyers & F. Rust
(Eds.) Taking action with teacher research (pp.1-16). Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
212
Miller, P.H. (2002). Theories of developmental psychology, 4th Edition. New York:
Worth Publishers.
Moll, L.C. (1990). Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications
of sociohistorical psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Morris, M., Chrispeels, J., & Burke, P. (2003). The power of two: Linking external with
internal teachers’ professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(10), 764767.
Morrison, J.A. & Estes, J.C. (2007). Using scientists and real-world scenarios in
professional development for middle school science teachers. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 18(2), 165-184.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2005). Science comparisons: View
results for students overall and for selected student groups. Retrieved 7/4/2007
from the National Assessment of Educational Progress website
http://nationsreportcard.gov/tuda_science/t0105.asp?subtab_id=Tab_5&tab_id=t
ab1#chart
National Research Council. (1996) National science education standards. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
National Science Teachers Association. (2006). NSTA position statement: Professional
development in science education. Retrieved 6/20/2006 from the NSTA website
www.nsta.org/positionstatement&psid=45.
Nichols, D., Churach, D. & Fisher, D. (2007, April). Industry-funded, content-rich
professional development: Influences on attitudes toward applied science. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in
Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Noffke, S. E. (1997). Professional, personal, and political dimensions of action research.
In M. W. Apple (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp.305-342).
Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Nyhof-Young, J. (2000). The political is personal: Reflections on facilitating action
research in gender issues in science education. Educational Action Research,
8(3), 471-498.
O’Brien, R. (1998). An overview of the methodological approach of action research.
Retrieved May 2, 2004, from the University of Toronto Web site:
http://www.web.net/~robrien/papers/arfinal.html
213
Orgill, M., Bodner, G.M., Ferguson, R., Hunter, W.J.F., & Mayo, P.M. (2007)
Theoretical frameworks for research in science education. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science
Teaching, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Oser, F.K. & Baeriswyl, F.J. (2001). Choreographies of teaching: Bridging instruction
to learning. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook on research on teaching (4th ed.
pp.1031-1065). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Palincsar, A.S., Magnusson, S.J., Marano, N., Ford, D., & Brown, N. (1998). Designing
a community of practice: Principles and practices of the gisml community.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(1), 5-19.
Payne, R. K. (1998). A framework for understanding poverty (revised edition)
Highlands, TX: RFT Publishing.
Phillips, Jr., J.L. (1969). The origins of Intellect: Piaget’s theory. San Francisco: W.H.
Freeman and Company.
Posner, G.J., Strike, K.A., Hewson, P.W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of
a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science
Education, 66(2), 211 – 227.
Prior, L. (2003). Using documents in social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rannikmae, M., Holbrook, J., & Teppo, M. (2007, April). Developing and evaluating a
sustainable, socially derived, science teaching approach: A longitudinal study of
teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for
Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Rice, D.C., & Roychoudhury, A. (2003). Preparing more confident preservice
elementary science teachers: One elementary science methods teacher’s selfstudy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14(2), 97-126.
Rogers, M.P., Abell, S., Lannin, J., Wang, C., Musikul, K., Barker, D. & Dingman, S.
(2007). Effective professional development in science and mathematics
education: Teachers’ and facilitators’ views. International Journal of Science
and Mathematics Education, 5, 507-532.
Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Roth, W. M., & Lee, S. (2004). Science education as/for participation in the
community. Science Education, 88(2), 263-291.
214
Routman, R. (1991). Invitations: Changing as teachers and learners k-12. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Sagor, R. (2000). Guiding school improvement with action research. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Santayana, G. (1906). Reason in common sense. In G. Santayana The life of reason.
London: Archibald Constable & CO, Ltd. Downloaded May 24, 2008 from the
Internet Archive webpage
http://www.archive.org/details/thelifeofreasono00santuoft
Schibeci, R.A. & Hickey, R.L. (2000). Is it natural or processed? Elementary school
teachers and conceptions about materials. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 37, (10) 1154-1170.
Schibeci, R.A. & Hickey, R.L. (2003). Dimensions of autonomy: Primary teachers,
decisions about involvement in science professional development. Science
Education, 88, 119-145.
Schiller, J., & Tillett, B. (2004). Using digital images with young children: Challenges
of integration. Early Childhood Development and Care, 174(4), 401-414.
Schön, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New
York: HarperCollins.
Shymansky, J. A., Hedges, L., & Woodworth, G. (1990). A reassessment of the effects
of inquiry-based science curricula of the 60’s on student performance. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 27(2), 127-144.
Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.
Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.
Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22.
Sparks, D. & Loucks-Horsley, S. (1989). Five models of staff development. Journal of
Staff Development, 10(4), 40-57.
Sprinthall. N.A. & Thies-Sprinthall, L. (1980). Educating for teacher growth: A
cognitive developmental perspective. Theory into Practice 29(4), pp. 278-286.
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 (2nd ed., pp.666-703). New York: Simon &
Schuster Macmillan.
215
Sterling, D.R., Frazier, W.M., Logerwell, M. G., & Dunn, K.D. (2007, April). Helping
uncertified science teachers survive teaching and focus on student learning.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research
in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Susman, G.I. & Evered, R.D. (1978). An assessment of the scientific merits of action
research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(4), 582-603.
Tillotson, J.W. (2000). Studying the game: Action research in science education. The
Clearing House 74(1), 31-34.
Townsend, D., & Adams, P. (2004). Action research in Chinook’s Edge school division:
Tracking the journey to a learning community. Innisfail, AB: Chinook’s Edge
School Division #73.
Trendel, G., Fischer, H., Reyer, T., & Wackermann, R. (2007, April). Video-based inservice training to improve science teachers’ support of learning processes.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research
in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA, USA
Tripp, D.H. (1990). Socially critical action research. Theory Into Practice, 29(3), 158166.
Valanides, N., Nicolaidou, A., & Eilks, I. (2003). Twelfth grade students’ understanding
of oxidation and combustion: Using action research to improve teachers’
practical knowledge and teaching practice. Research in Science & Technology,
21(2), 159-175.
van Driel, J.H., Beijaard, D. & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and
reform in science education: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137-158.
Van Tassell, M. A. (2001). Student inquiry in science: Asking questions, building
foundations, and making connections. In G. Wells, (Ed.), Action talk and text
(pp.41-59). New York: Teacher College Press.
van Zee, E. H. (1998). Fostering elementary teachers’ research on their science teaching
practices. Journal of Teacher Education, 49 (4), 245-254.
van Zee, E., Lay, D., & Roberts, D. (2003). Fostering collaborative inquiries by
prospective and practicing elementary and middle school teachers. Science
Education, 87(4), 588-612.
216
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological
processes. (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman Eds.).
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press
Wee, B., Shepardson, D. Fast, J & Harbor, J. (2007). Teaching and learning about
inquiry: Insights and challenges in professional development. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 18(1), 63-89.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Wiggins, G. & McTigue, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Winter, R. (1989). Learning from experience: Principles and practice in actionresearch. New York: Falmer Press.
Woolfolk, A. (2004). Educational psychology (9th ed.). New York: Pearson.
Wong, S.L., Cheng, M.W., & Yung, B.H.W. (2007, April). Professional development
for teaching the nature of science: What works best for in-service science
teachers? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for
Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Zehler, A.(1994). Working with English language learners: Strategies for elementary
and middle school teachers. National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education
Program Information Guide Series, Number 19, Summer 1994. Downloaded
from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/ May 1, 2008.
Zembylas, M., & Isenbarger, L. (2002). Teaching science to students with learning
disabilities: Subverting the myths through teachers’ caring and enthusiasm.
Research in Science Education, 32, 55-79.
217
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF MARZANO ET AL. (2001) RESEARCH-BASED
INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES AS USED BY PAS TEACHERS
218
Strategy
Basic Elements
Identifying Similarities and
Differences
Recognizing characteristics, categories,
patterns, and relationships among things or
ideas
Summarizing and Note-taking
Distilling information into a synthesized form
Reinforcing Effort and Providing
Recognition
Emphasizing that effort is the cause of
achievement
Homework and Practice
Opportunities to deepen understanding and
skills relative to content that has been initially
presented
Non-linguistic Representations
Using visual cues, mental pictures or physical
sensations to obtain and store knowledge
Cooperative Learning
Grouping strategies that promote positive
interdependence, group accountability, and
group processing
Setting Objectives and Providing
Feedback
Establishing a specific learning goal with
students and giving explicit corrective and
timely information to students about how well
they are progressing
Generating and Testing Hypotheses
Students applying personal knowledge to
develop a conjecture for empirical testing
Cues, Questions and Advance
Organizers
Activating prior knowledge and providing
ideational scaffolding
219
APPENDIX B
PAS RESEARCH REPORT WRITING PROMPTS
220
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
What strategies did you use
with your students? How
did you adapt the strategy
to fit the needs of your
students?
What strategies did you use
with your students? If the
instructional strategy(s)
you selected is described in
Classroom Instruction that
Works (Marzano et al.,
2001), what, if any,
adaptations did you make
prior to implementation? If
your strategy(s) is not
found in Classroom
Instruction that Works
(Marzano et al.), please
describe and provide the
research base.
What strategies did you use
with your students? If the
instructional strategy(s)
you selected is described in
Classroom Instruction that
Works (Marzano et al.,
2001), what, if any,
adaptations did you make
prior to implementation? If
your strategy(s) is not
found in Classroom
Instruction that Works
(Marzano et al.), please
describe and provide the
research base.
Give examples of how this
strategy was or was not
effective with your
students.
Give examples of how this
strategy was or was not
effective with your
students.
Give examples of how this
strategy(s) was or was not
effective with your
students.
What was the baseline for
your building-level
measure(s)? How did
student performance on
building-level measures
change during the course of
the year and why? Provide
quantitative and qualitative
data to support your
rationale.
What was your buildinglevel measure(s)? How did
student performance on
building-level measures
change during the course of
the year and why? Provide
quantitative and qualitative
data to support your
rationale.
List your building-level
(classroom) measures(s)?
How did student
performance on buildinglevel (classroom) measures
change during the course of
the year and why? Provide
quantitative (numeric) and
qualitative (descriptive)
data to support your
reasons.
What overall conclusions
can you draw from this
information? How will this
influence the strategies and
measures that you will use
for the 2002-2003 school
year?
What overall conclusions
can you draw from this
information? How will this
influence the strategies and
measures that you will use
for the 2003-2004 school
year?
What overall conclusions
can you draw from this
information? How will this
influence the strategies and
measures that you will use
for the 2004-2005 school
year?
221
APPENDIX C
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT CODING CATEGORIES
222
Professional Development Initiatives
Evidentiary Meaning
Use of Data to Drive Instruction
Lessons based on demonstrated student
knowledge and skills as determined by
formative assessments
Active Student Centered Lessons
Students engaged in open or guided
inquiry, or cooperative grouping
Writing in the Content Area
Use of flow charts, webbing, graphic
organizers, KWL charts, Cornell notes, or
quick writes
Use of Classroom Discourse
Students engaged in open or guided
discussion of the concepts being
taught/investigated, i.e. Instructional
Conversations, Paideia Seminar
Rubrics or Other Student Self Assessment
Tools
Student use of self or teacher generated
rubrics, checklists, flowcharts, etc. to self
monitor achievement progress
Student Notebooks/Portfolios
Student use of structured systems for
storage of written instructional materials
or products
Use of Curriculum Guides and/or Pacing
Charts
Use of school district provided curricular
materials to regulate instructional content
and pacing
Focused Practice of Short & Extended
Response Answers
Written practice on constructing an answer
to an open-ended achievement test
question. Use of structured writing
strategies.
Conceptual Change Model
Attending to misconceptions,
constructivism, using discrepant events,
emphasis on development of scientifically
accepted theory
Learning Cycle
Five E model, student inquiry,
constructivism, student prior knowledge
223
Professional Development Initiatives
Evidentiary Meaning
Use of Higher Level Questioning
Teacher/student use of questions for
analysis, synthesis or evaluation
Project/thematic Based Lessons
Integration of curricular areas based on
enduring themes or solving real world
problems
Cultural Relevance
Using cultural referents to build
conceptual understanding within an
inclusive learning community
Differentiated Instruction
Modifying instruction in terms of content,
process or product
224
APPENDIX D
SUMMARIES OF PAS SCIENCE ACTION RESEARCH PROJECTS
225
ID
67.1
Level NCE
Gain
ES
6.68
Summary
67.3
ES
5.70
Replication of 67.1
97
ES
25.53
First grade students improved their science skills and
knowledge through receiving instruction guided by setting
specific objectives and providing timely feedback. Each
lesson was initiated with a brief discussion of the intended
lesson objectives. Students were encouraged to ask questions
about the objectives in terms of how the objectives related to
the ongoing work of the classroom. Specific oral feedback
related to student performance on the objectives was given to
students both while they were working and in individual
conferences after the lesson. During the conferences students
were taught to use a rubric for scoring their own
performance.
116.1
ES
5.69
Second grade students improved their science skills and
knowledge through utilization of nonlinguistic
representations. An emphasis was placed on using sensory
rich activities to provide multiple neural links within
memory. A key component was the daily use of a science
word wall on which a colorful outline of terms, concepts and
applications were illustrated by photographs, diagrams,
icons, pictures and/or graphic organizers. The science wall
was used to begin and end each lesson with a review of
previous work and an introduction of the next concept to be
shared. Most class sessions included guided or open student
inquiry using diverse materials. Often the lessons were
conducted outside of the normal classroom such as the
Fourth grade students improved their science proficiency test
scores through summarizing and note taking. Summarizing
included questioning, prediction, clarifying, and problem
solving in order to draw a conclusion from data collected
during a science investigation. Structured opportunities for
student note taking occurred through using teacher prepared
notes, student webbing and summary statements written in a
journal throughout the school year. Students were taught
how to web science concepts, do quick writes and how to
read and take notes for research. Webbing and quick writes
were completed both before and after units of study to
generate informal assessment data. Requiring written
responses during lessons and in using journals emphasized
the importance of writing as it relates to science proficiency.
226
ID
Level NCE
Gain
Summary
playground, school garden or a specific field trip site.
Manipulating objects or exploring unique spaces while
engaged in a focused activity allowed the students to use all
of their senses to record data and helped the students to
generate mental images of the content. At the end of each
lesson, students were required to record their observations
and/or conclusions. Multisensory materials such as clay,
paint or colored pencils were available for the students to
make charts, diagrams or models of their day's work.
299.3
ES
.64
Fourth grade students improved their science proficiency test
scores through working with the strategy cues, questions and
advance organizers. Frequently students engaged in class
construction of KWL charts and color coded word walls.
Student progress was monitored through the use of writing
during science class. Chadwell Type I assignments were
utilized to highlight student understanding prior to
instruction and Type II was used as a summative measure.
An emphasis was placed on questioning and classroom oral
discourse to build and extend student understanding. An
emphasis was also placed upon practicing writing responses
to open ended proficiency test questions.
376.1
ES
3.67
Fourth grade students improved their science skills through
instruction using the strategies 1) generating and testing
hypotheses and 2) reinforcing effort and providing
recognition. Once a week students came to the science lab
and were engaged in a one hour and fifteen minute inquiry
science lesson. Generating and testing hypotheses is the basis
of inquiry learning. When weaknesses in content knowledge
surfaced, focused lessons were delivered to provide
sufficient background knowledge. Also once a week students
were tutored in small groups on test taking skills specific to
the fourth grade proficiency test. Progress in science
proficiency was charted for each student and used for
motivation. Having the opportunity to guide their own
learning through inquiry increased student confidence, which
led to improved effort and higher achievement.
376.3
ES
5.93
Replication of 376.1
491.1
ES
.95
Fourth grade students increased their science proficiency test
scores through learning how to generate and test hypotheses
227
ID
Level NCE
Gain
Summary
in science class. An emphasis was placed on analyzing and
writing lab reports of assigned experiments. Writing
templates were designed and presented to students to assist
them in both inductive and deductive thinking processes. The
researcher concluded that students need modeling, guided
discussion and reflection to help them with problem solving,
invention, experimental inquiry, and in making decisions. An
emphasis was also placed upon practicing writing responses
to open ended proficiency test questions.
521.3
ES
7.72
Fourth grade students improved their science proficiency
scores through taking notes and summarizing content during
science lessons. The notes and summaries were kept in a
three-ring binder the entire year and referenced during
writing assignments as well as for studying for tests.
Additional written assignments such as lab reports and
concept summaries were also included in the notebook.
Students were initially taught how to take notes through a
teacher-generated outline of important terms and concepts.
During class the students wrote the necessary definitions and
explanations of the concepts listed. Key vocabulary words
were highlighted to make them easier to find for "quick
write" writing assignments. Direct instruction in writing and
rubric scoring techniques for short and extended response
questions in science was also provided. The students were
taught how to use their notebooks to find the necessary
content material for answering the questions.
527
ES
-3.46
Fifth grade students employed the strategies of cooperative
learning and generating and testing hypotheses during
science class. An emphasis was placed on practicing
proficiency type test questions throughout the school year.
Structured notebooks were created to assist students in
recording definitions of science terms and directions for
setting up and analyzing guided inquiry lessons.
659.3
ES
.32
Fourth grade students worked to improve their scores on the
proficiency test through developing writing skills to answer
open ended proficiency test questions. Teacher questioning
throughout the science lesson was designed to assist the
students in making generalizations, inferences, determine
cause and effect and to analyze data gathered in class. Verbal
cues and advance organizers were also employed to focus
228
ID
Level NCE
Gain
Summary
student thinking toward the science concepts being taught.
Departmentalization permitted the teacher to focus on
science instruction; however, students not in her homeroom
seemed to have less content knowledge. The researcher
concluded that her integration of science content during the
language arts block added to her homeroom students’ content
knowledge. Students in the other homerooms missed this
content support.
695.3
ES
.57
Students in a class composed of both fourth and fifth graders
learned to summarize and take notes utilizing a science
textbook, science content videos and teacher prepared
learning materials. An emphasis was placed on teaching
students to recognize print cues for identifying important
information. For example, bold print type, section headings
and side-bar captions were noted. Students were also
required to answer chapter check-up questions as a means of
learning testable content.
740
ES
-.19
Multiple components of nonlinguistic representations were
utilized with fourth grade students during science class. A
routine was established in which students utilized a graphic
organizer similar in format to Cornell notes during each
lesson to record prior knowledge, presented factual material,
and a summarization of revised thinking on the topic.
Physical model making and drawing pictures were also
employed to build student understanding of science concepts.
Classroom management issues impacted the successful
implementation of these strategies.
870
ES
1.82
Fourth grade students improved their science proficiency test
scores through participating in inquiry lab work with a
partner and then writing an illustrated summary in a journal.
Each class began with a proficiency type question targeting
the previous lesson's content allowing for ongoing practice in
proficiency type assessments. Consistently writing and
keeping summaries in a journal helped students to organize
their thoughts and revise their evolving understanding of
scientific concepts. Nine overarching components of the
science curriculum were selected and each was taught for
three weeks. All components were covered before the March
administration of the proficiency test.
229
ID
896
Level NCE
Gain
ES
.75
Summary
937.1
ES
7.94
Fourth and fifth grade students improved their achievement
scores through maintaining science portfolios. These
portfolios contained conceptual work completed on graphic
organizers, written summaries of nonfiction reading, lab
reports and other science class assignments. Students selfchecked their work and their classmates work with a teacher
prepared rubric before inclusion in the portfolio. Active
learning lessons were inquiry oriented. As each new learning
outcome was covered, students were required to write short
summaries connecting past learning with present.
973.1
ES
18.52
First grade students improved their understanding of and
achievement in science through writing summaries of
science lessons. Initially summaries were the result of
classroom discourse and were written collaboratively in a
whole group on chart paper. Students were encouraged to
copy the (short) summary into a personal science journal and
add illustrations or additional content. Through student oral
participation, misconceptions were identified and additional
instructional support was provided. Nonfiction picture
storybooks were used to supplement curricular materials.
1054.1
ES
6.95
Second grade students improved their science achievement
scores through guided practice in observation,
documentation, data collection and cooperative group
inquiry. The students completed a series of assignments that
built process skills in context. First observation was taught,
then observation with documentation, and finally
observation, documentation and data collection. A
concluding project involved students working together on a
group-designed inquiry, utilizing the previous three process
skills.
Second grade students improved their science test scores
through a classroom emphasis on oral discourse, written
literacy skills, and guided group inquiry. Oral partner sharing
interspersed with teacher questioning during guided inquiry
helped to build student content knowledge. Varied
instructional resources such as picture books, manipulative
items from the science kits, videos and teacher demonstrated
discrepant events captured student interest.
230
ID
139
Level NCE
Gain
MS 5.48
Summary
873
MS
-.33
Eighth grade students monitored their progress toward
science proficiency through keeping a notebook of
assignments and weekly grade sheets. Students took multiple
practice proficiency tests and completed practice extended
response writing prompts that were graded. Weekly, students
reflected on their effort and grades. Students were required to
obtain a parental signature to encourage home involvement
with student learning.
940
MS
.29
Sixth grade students improved their social and academic
skills by working in cooperative groups during science class.
During group time, each student had individual
responsibilities as well as obligations to the effective
functioning of the group. The teacher circulated throughout
the room during group work and proffered positive
reinforcement, checked for content knowledge formation,
and asked questions to stimulate group processing. The
teacher concluded that the confidence students gained from
their successes in group time carried over to other learning.
968.1
MS
8.42
Sixth grade students improved their scores on the science
proficiency test through practicing extended response
questions as homework assignments. Homework was
designed to review specific science concepts taught during
class. At the beginning of each class a discussion of the
previous night's homework was held and students were given
an opportunity to ask questions. Students who displayed
misconceptions were given individual and/or group tutoring
to correct their misunderstanding. Students often benefited
from hearing explanations from their peers because they
were given in everyday language and drawn from
Graphic organizers were employed to help sixth grade
students learn to write short and extended response answers
to achievement test like questions. Daily practice ensured a
deep understanding of how to deconstruct a question and
write an appropriate answer. Discussion of the answers
revealed student knowledge and misconceptions. Classroom
discourse was used for students to justify their responses to
their classmates and self-correct their answers. Students
received similar practice in their English & Language Arts
class where a parallel action research project was
simultaneously in progress.
231
ID
Level NCE
Gain
Summary
experiences common among the students. Students gained
skill in composing extended response answers and gained
insight into the value of explaining scientific processes as
much as knowing factual information.
77.1
HS
12.05
Cooperative learning was used in ninth grade physical
science classes to increase student performance in both lab
situations and on standardized tests. Flexible grouping
allowed accommodation for varying student and content
needs. Random assignment, teacher selected, student
selected, alphabetical grouping, even birthday generated
groups were used as means for selection. Group size also
varied and ranged from two to five students depending upon
the activity. Some groups remained together for several days
but other times they stayed together for the entire semester.
Using cooperative learning worked best when the students
were motivated to learn and cooperate. When the students
were willing to work together there were fewer discipline
problems in class. Initially this approach took more teacher
involvement to overcome students' perception that the
purpose of group work was socializing. With persistence and
accountability in the form of deadlines and group/individual
grades, students soon valued cooperative learning for
academic achievement.
127
HS
-.73
Ninth and tenth grade students enrolled in physical science
utilized homework and practice to improve their proficiency
test scores in science. Homework was only assigned on
material that had already been taught in class. Students had
homework “buddies” to call for assistance. Homework was
always reviewed in class the next day to permit the discovery
and correction of misconceptions. Flash cards and practice
proficiency tests were employed during class time to
reinforce the tested content.
210.1
HS
- 9.30
Multiple strategies were employed to assist high school
biology students increase their science achievement:
reinforcing effort and providing recognition; homework and
practice; and identifying similarities and differences.
Students frequently engaged in Type I writing assignments,
which were utilized to establish prior knowledge. Many
other types of assessments were also employed and selftracked by students in a science assignment notebook.
232
ID
332.1
Level NCE
Gain
HS
10.56
Summary
332.3
HS
-3.42
Ninth grade students were encouraged to monitor their own
effort in physical science class through completing a weekly
assignment and grade checklist. However, student noncooperation in completing assignments nearly derailed the
entire project. Furthermore, changes in student scheduling
created an unusually heavy homework load in core subjects.
Extensive teacher modeling in time management and
encouragement helped some students to stay on track.
363.1
HS
7.75
High school students improved their skills and knowledge in
Chemistry through cooperative learning and differentiated
instruction. Students working in small groups of two or three
exchanged ideas, communicated scientific knowledge, and
tutored peers. Thematic units such as Elements and the
Importance of the Periodic Table were designed to help
students gain depth of knowledge and understand real world
application of scientific principles. Varied modes of
instruction were used such as laboratory investigations,
written reflections, projects and guest speakers. Computer
technology was routinely incorporated into instruction and
student work. Students were given choices to demonstrate
knowledge such as making PowerPoint shows, models,
poster presentations using diagrams, charts and graphs, and
biographical timelines. Portfolio assessment gave insight into
students' understanding of scientific concepts that often
Ninth grade students improved their scores in science
through generating portfolios and using the data to track the
relationship between effort and success. Portfolios included
all of the daily work, tests, journal entries, project
summaries, and video score sheets. At least twice a quarter
the portfolios were collected and given a grade based upon
completeness. Students that attended regularly and applied
strong effort found positive results in their proficiency test
outcome and coursework grades. Each student rated their
weekly effort on Friday in a required journal entry, wrote an
explanation for their rating and at the end of each quarter
produced a graph detailing weekly effort. Verbal praise and
small rewards were given to students who completed their
work each week. An emphasis was placed on applying the
effort necessary to receive an "A" on the portfolio checks
because consistent "A" work would prepare the student to do
well on the proficiency test.
233
ID
Level NCE
Gain
Summary
remains hidden when assessment is limited to paper and
pencil exams.
363.3
HS
12.62
Replication of 363.1
413
HS
- 1.85
High school chemistry students worked in cooperative
groups to complete guided inquiry labs and practice
assignments both inside and outside of class. Poor student
attendance and tardiness confounded the group work, as
student contributions were inconsistent. However, in many
cases, high achieving students helped lower achieving
students to understand the material.
530
HS
- 3.65
Chemistry students learned to develop and test hypotheses
about given science phenomena. Initially, guidelines were
given to assist the students in formulating testable questions
and determining logical procedures for testing the
hypothesis. Students wrote detailed plans in laboratory
notebooks, which assisted the teacher in identifying student
instructional needs.
591.2
HS
10.53
Reinforcing effort and providing recognition were used with
ninth grade science students. Students were required to write
a journal entry each Friday in which they rated their own
effort in science class. At the end of the semester students
rated their effort and compared it to their final grade to gauge
the results of their work. A classroom poster indicating the
classroom percentage of students achieving at least a 75% in
science was updated weekly to assist students in their selfevaluation of effort. Public recognition for student effort
was delivered in the form of monthly and end of the year
academic award assemblies. A sustained effort in increasing
positive parental contact was also employed as a means of
public reinforcement and recognition. The teachers of the
Freshman Success Academy Team created a parental contact
notebook for each of their classes and rotated it among the
team members throughout the school year. By keeping track
of parental contacts we were able to coordinate our efforts.
Telephone calls, informal contacts such as at sporting events,
newsletters and postcards mailed to the students' home were
methods used for parental contact regarding positive student
behavior and academic effort. These positive contacts
became known as "Cowboy Kudos" and were very favorably
234
ID
Level NCE
Gain
Summary
received by most parents.
703.1
HS
18.45
Cooperative learning was used with twelfth grade students
enrolled in Physics. Flexible grouping was employed to
allow teacher discretion based on complexity of content and
students' interpersonal skills. Grouping techniques included
student choice, random draw, mixed ability and alphabetical.
Small self selected groups worked together the entire year on
teacher assigned problems, peer tutoring, catching up on
missed assignments and frequently studied together outside
of class. Groups for formal exam reviews were created
through random assignment. Lab groups were teacher
selected based upon mixed ability. Student grouping for labs
and reviews were effective in team building however, to
ensure maximum benefit; the teacher needed to closely
monitor the groups.
798
HS
- 9.87
Biology students attempted to increase their critical thinking
skills through weekly practice in answering high-level
questions drawn from the curriculum content. Initially the
practice was assigned as independent written homework
assignments. Later assignments were completed in small
mixed-ability groups in class and results reported orally.
855.1
HS
8.82
Ninth grade students improved their science achievement
through maintaining a science notebook and self-monitoring
progress. Students entered personal grades weekly into a
grade log and computed running percentages of achievement.
All science assignments were included in a teacherstructured notebook. Students utilized their notebooks as a
resource to complete assignments, to study for exams, and to
relate previous instruction to current instruction.
855.3
HS
- 9.45
Biology students participated in a classroom experiment to
determine the efficacy of implementing a homework and
practice strategy. The students alternately received and then
did not receive the intervention strategy. The teacher
compared student achievement from one quarter to the next
and concluded that the strategy made a difference in student
grades. However, the teacher researcher failed to understand
that success in PAS is determined by comparison of her PAS
student sample to all non-PAS students. The inconsistent
application of the research-based instructional strategy with
235
ID
Level NCE
Gain
Summary
her students depressed their overall achievement.
877.1
HS
2.56
Ninth grade students improved their science achievement
through cooperative learning and self-monitoring of effort.
Students quantified and recorded personal effort in
completing assignments in homework logs. Explicitly
connecting student effort to grades improved student
engagement in classroom activities. Frequent telephone calls
to parents to report student successes were highly influential
in motivating students to even greater levels of effort.
Permitting students to work collaboratively on assignments
built a sense of classroom community that valued and
reinforced student achievement.
958
HS
- 8.96
Physics students were assisted in developing scientifically
accurate conceptions of the mechanics of motion and wave
phenomena. Student prior knowledge was activated through
taking The Survey of Mechanics Conceptions and Survey of
Wave Phenomena. Classroom discussion during whole class
demonstrations and inquiry activities in student labs.
Students were guided to defend their positions using data. An
emphasis was placed on exposing and correcting student
alternate conceptions.
1069.1
HS
11.02
High school Biology students increased their science
achievement through completing homework assignments
explicitly related to current classroom topics. Additional
practice was facilitated through working in cooperative
groups during class. The size of the groups varied to match
the nature of the assignments. For example, lab partners
worked in groups of 2 or 3, while research projects usually
included 4 or 5 students. Assignments were differentiated to
meet the learning needs of individual students.
1069.3
HS
-12.06
Physics students created portfolios of their work while
participating in the ExploraVision contest sponsored by
Toshiba and NSTA. The contest involved students working
to combine their imaginations with the tools of science to
create a vision of a future technology. Students worked in
cooperative groups and received regular positive
reinforcement from the teacher. The teacher guided students
in their personal inquiry through individual conferences.
Portfolio documentation was reviewed during the
236
ID
Level NCE
Gain
Summary
conferences utilizing a rubric.
1080.1
HS
- 8.73
Biology students participated in cooperative learning to
enhance their learning. Classroom instruction relied heavily
upon the use of the textbook and accompanying resource
materials. The students were enrolled utilizing a block
schedule, which meant that students only had Biology for
one semester. In addition, student attendance greatly
influenced achievement.
1083.2
HS
8.27
Reinforcing effort and providing recognition were used with
ninth grade science students. Journals were used for the
students to personally track their efforts and improvements in
science class. Every three weeks the teacher provided a grade
check including a list of assignments, grades received,
missing assignments and the student's current grade for the
class. Hallway displays of student photographs celebrated
good work and strong effort in science class. Monthly and
end of the year academic award assemblies including
tangible rewards such as movie passes and snacks recognized
and rewarded academic accomplishment and effort.
Postcards identifying positive student behavior and academic
accomplishments were mailed to the homes of students.
These positive communications became known as "Cowboy
Kudos" and were highly effective in engaging parents in the
school lives of their children.
237