COLLABORATIVE ACTION RESEARCH ON BECOMING SCIENCE
TEACHER EDUCATORS
Brenda M. Capobianco,
Tom McConnell,
Michelle Priddy,
Lauren Schellenberger,
The role of teacher action research is well documented in pre-service, in-service, and independent teacher professional development initiatives. However, little is known about the instrumental role teacher action research plays in the professional development of teacher educators. This study examines the use of collaborative teacher action research in assisting three prospective science teacher educators’ professional development and growth. Participants employ qualitative methods such as interviewing, reflective e-journaling, formative assessments, and classroom observations, as a means of assessing the impact of their instructional approaches. Data sources include the participants’ final action research papers, reflective journal entries, the instructor’s field notes from class discussions, and additional supporting documents. Data were analyzed using cross-case document analysis and narrative inquiry. First- and second-order action research results reveal the complex ways prospective science teacher educators gained new pedagogical knowledge, professional understanding, and ability to reflect critically on how to better prepare pre-service science teachers.
Introduction
The
role of teacher action research is well documented in pre-service, in-service,
and independent teacher professional development initiatives (Abell, Bryan,
& Anderson, 1998; Capobianco, in press; Feldman, 1994; Hodson & Bencze,
1998; Tabachnick & Zeichner,
1999; vanZee, Lay, & Roberts, 2003).
However, little is known about the role teacher action research plays in the professional
development and preparation of prospective science teacher educators. Doctoral
students constitute a significant part of the staff in science teacher education
programs at state colleges and universities. They serve as key mentors,
supervisors, and instructors in courses and programs, such as undergraduate
science courses, science methods, and student teaching. In many cases, doctoral
students are instructors or supervisors while serving as students of the very
same processes they study, model, and teach. In what ways can action research
help prepare doctoral students for the scholarship of teaching and learning in
science education? How might engaging action research facilitate the development of
doctoral students’ habits of mind and ability to: 1) foster significant,
long-lasting learning for all students; 2) enhance their practice and
profession of science teaching; and 3) make important contributions to the
field of research in science teacher education?
Examining the role of action research in the
development of doctoral students (i.e. prospective science teacher educators) complements
the timely efforts of researchers at the Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching [CFAT] (2005). In 2001, CFAT launched a multiyear
project to examine the doctoral degree in the
An organizing
notion for this initiative is that doctoral programs should produce “stewards
of the discipline.” According to CID researchers, these individuals must
develop the habits of mind and ability to do three things well: “1) creatively generate new knowledge; 2) critically conserve valuable and useful ideas; and
3) responsibly transform those
understandings through writing, teaching, and application” (CFAT, 2005). In
this study, we conducted an in-depth examination of how action research
facilitated graduate students’ capacity to generate, conserve, and transform
knowledge into powerful pedagogies of engagement, understanding, and
application within the field of science teacher education. This study explores
and documents the perspectives and experiences of three prospective science
teacher educators learning to engage in collaborative teacher action research
on how to effectively prepare pre-service science teachers. The graduate
teaching assistants planned and conducted action research within their
respective undergraduate courses, including biology, botany, and environmental
science courses. Through collaborative action research, the graduate teaching
assistants interacted, reflected, and made meaning of the complexities
associated with transforming their practice to be more student-centered,
authentic, and inquiry-based.
Theoretical
Framework
This study was grounded in two main areas of literature: action research and first- and second-order action research.
Action Research
Simply put, action research is a form of systematic, intentional, self-reflective inquiry undertaken by teachers to improve their own practice and understanding of their practice (Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1992; McNiff, 2002; Stenhouse, 1985). Deliberate attempts are made on the part of the practitioner to identify and address a particular phenomenon so that the practitioner gains new knowledge and discovers a new understanding about his/her own educational situation. In the context of this study, we employed collaborative action research. Collaborative action research is associated with experiences of meeting with colleagues, sharing ideas, and making decisions that foster a cohesive, supportive and productive network (Capobianco, in press; Feldman, 1994). As we joined together each week, we teased out our emerging ideas about how to transform our practice and developed action plans to address varying phenomena in our classrooms.
For this study, we take the position that action research should be valued not simply as a heuristic for the individual graduate teaching assistant. Rather, if it is to play a role in the co-construction of new knowledge for science teaching and learning, teacher action research must also be cumulative, malleable, and accessible to different people (i.e., teachers and teacher educators alike) and their respective educational situations over time for a variety of purposes. Furthermore, science teacher educators and researchers must develop standards of quality and evaluation for action research that are appropriate to and supportive of key stages of the development of prospective science teachers.
First- and
Second-Order Action Research
Embedded in this study is Elliott’s (1991) construct of first- and second-order action research. In his book, Action Research for Educational Change (Elliott, 1991), Elliott states:
The attempt of the Humanities project team to facilitate reflective practice in schools generated an important conceptual distinction between the ‘research’ role of the outsider in relation to the ‘research’ role of the insider practitioner (see Elliott 1976-77). Stenhouse contrasted the first order inquiry of the teachers with the second order inquiry of the central team. The teachers’ inquiry was focused on the problems of developing pedagogical strategies consistent with educational aims and principles. The team’s inquiry was focused on the problems of facilitating teachers’ reflective capacities (Elliott, pp. 26-27).
In the same book, Elliott talks of a “second order process of action research...a process of reflectively analyzing his experience as an action-research facilitator” (p. 13). For the graduate students, their research ‘object’ was their own teaching practice (first order inquiry). For the outside researcher (the course instructor), it was the strategies for facilitating the development and interpretation of the ‘students’ reflective capacities.’ This distinction between first- and second-order action research is particularly important in the context of this study. It questions the location of ownership, as research primarily belongs to the graduate students. In this study, it was up to the graduate students to establish objectives and strategies to achieve them. For the most part the instructor’s contributions were only one of support and facilitation of the action research process. Hence, first-order action research was driven and directed by the graduate students in the context of our collaborative action research group while second-order action research was facilitated by the instructor and her interpretation and analysis of the students’ reflective experiences of becoming researchers on their science teaching.
Context
of the Study
The primary objectives of the course were for students to be able to: 1) develop an understanding of what action research is, how it is conducted, and what role it plays in the construction of teacher knowledge in science education; 2) plan and conduct action research within their respective educational situation; 3) generate and transform knowledge through self-critical inquiry; and 4) gain insight into the role action research plays in science education and science teacher education.
The instructional approach was to provide graduate students with diverse opportunities to actively engage in the processes of action research, establish and sustain collaborative and active dialog among peers in the class, and build upon their existing knowledge base for research and science teaching. Students were encouraged to maintain a reflective research notebook; establish a cohort of critical friends and meet weekly; present a starting point speech; develop a data collection plan; participate in a data analysis workshop; and prepare and present a final action research paper. The instructor encouraged graduate students to choose their own personal inquiries and connect their own classroom experiences and knowledge with the research processes to be learned. In turn, this required that the instructor to understand the role and context of each teacher’s personal life in the learning process. By facilitating graduate students’ understanding and practice of action research, the instructor provided the graduate students with opportunities to develop: 1) knowledge and skills of science pedagogy; 2) curriculum and instructional materials; 3) a variety of assessment approaches; and 4) different research approaches to address significant inquiries in science teacher education.
Participants
As graduate students, instructors, and authors of this paper, we have opted to take credit for our contributions by using our real names in an attempt to represent all of our voices with respect to our own viewpoints and lived experiences with transforming our science teaching through action research. The participants of this study include three graduate students in science education; Tom, Michelle, and Lauren and the course instructor, Brenda. All three graduate students came to this study with extensive undergraduate academic experience in one or more sciences as well as at least one year of study in educational research. Tom is a doctoral candidate in biology education and former practicing biology teacher with a strong interest in integrating instructional technology in the science classroom. Michelle is a masters student in environmental education with interest in pursuing a career in informal science education. Lauren is a doctoral student in biology education who is interested in teaching biology at the community college level. All three participants entered this study with little to no previous experience in or knowledge of teacher action research. Yet all three participants demonstrated a keen ability to reflect critically on their own personal and professional experiences, very early on in the course.
The
course instructor entered this study with extensive knowledge and experience
with action research. Brenda completed graduate work in action research,
conducted action research as a practicing middle school science teacher, a
university instructional consultant (Capobianco & Feldman, 2002), and
novice science teacher educator (Capobianco, in press) and co-facilitated
collaborative action research groups (Capobianco, in press; Capobianco &
Feldman, 2002). Our ultimate goal was
to: 1) to improve our practice by studying and conducting action research; and
2) to learn more about how we can build and sustain quality action research
among science teacher educators and science education researchers.
Methodology
Action research was the primary method through which we engaged in to learn more about their own practice. The method of action research that we employed was enhanced normal practice (Feldman 1994), which consisted of anecdote-telling, the trying out of ideas, and systematic classroom inquiry. Narrative inquiry was the second method we adopted in this study. In order to understand how we, as a collective group of researchers, were making meaning of our practice and the changes that we made in our practice, it was important to hear and listen to one another’s stories of their practice and the steps we took to transform our practice. Our narratives served as “the context for making meaning” of the changes we initiated within our own educational situations (Connelly & Clandinin 2002, p. 3). Because of the collaborative nature of our study, narrative inquiry allowed us to see ourselves as active participants of the research process so that our voices were acknowledged and valued as an integral part of the study. Each of the graduate students wrote a first-person narrative account from his/her perspective (Clandinin & Connelly, 2002). In these narratives, each researcher summarized his/her action research study, reflections of his/her experiences, and emerging perceptions of teaching pre-service teachers and learning more about teacher action research.
Data Sources
It is important to
note that there are two distinct components that define our model for collaborative
action research used in this study. The first component consists of the
graduate students conducting action research.
The second component consists of instructor examining the graduate
students and how they engage in action research. This required the graduate students to employ
their own methods for gathering data. The
graduate students used ethnographic methods (i.e. interviews, journal keeping,
classroom observations, formative assessment, and document review), as well as
surveys and questionnaires, in their research. The major products of their
research included: 1) a statement of his/her research interests; 2) a
reflective research notebook chronicling their development; 3) a starting point
speech; 4) a data collection plan; and 5) a final action research paper. Excerpts
from these data sources in addition to field notes from weekly class
discussions and classroom observations and reflective journal entries served as
significant data sources for the course instructor and this respective study.
Data Analysis
Once all the data
were collected, we then began the preliminary analysis using grounded theory
(Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The first
step entailed open coding of the data, specifically field notes from class
meetings, students’ reflective journal entries, and final action research
papers (Miles and Huberman, 1994).
During this phase, emphasis was given on identifying indicators of
concepts and categories that fit the data.
Repeatedly appearing categories and concepts helped to construct themes
based on the lessons the students learned on becoming researchers. The viability of the construction of themes
was then tested against other relevant data sets (i.e. field notes from
classroom observations and other supporting documents).
The final phase of analysis involved the continued interpretation of each source of data with particular attention to the stories each graduate student shared throughout the course of the study. Through construction and reconstruction of the students’ stories (Clandinin &Connelly, 2002), the graduate students with the help from the instructor, created narratives grounded in the data that makes sense of how each graduate student transformed his/her practice using action research.
First-Order
Results Presented by the Course Instructor
Defining What Research Means
One of the first tasks I encouraged graduate students to do was to define what “research” and “action research” meant to them. My intention was to determine how students characterized “legitimate research.” Could engaging in action research somehow influence their ways of thinking about educational research? As the semester progressed, the graduate students and I revisited our working definitions for both terms and modified them accordingly. At the end of the semester, we prepared a summative list of characteristics for each term as a result of our engagement with action research (see Tables 1 and 2).
Table 1
Working
Definitions for “Research” from January to May, 2005.
Characteristics of Research
Beginning of Semester Middle of Semester End of Semester
Collaborative Collaborative Aimed
at “self” inquiry
Methodical Critiqued
by community of practice Systematic
Systematic Orderly
vs. random Self-critical,
reflective
Starts with a hypothesis or
question Hypothesis-driven Descriptive
Collection of data Involves
data collection & analysis Action
research = research
Analytical Methodical Action
research can serve
Has a set of standards as
a research methodology
Creative process
Transformative
Generates a new question
Table 2
Working
Definitions for “Action Research” from January to May, 2005.
Characteristics of Research
Beginning of Semester Middle of Semester End of Semester
Answer question Decision
driven Self-inquiry
Institutes action Data-driven Action
research is made public
Collaboration Systematic
Context
of research = practice
Data collection &
analysis Reflective Reflection
is an integral part
Creative Collaborative Product
= knowledge construction
Based on students’ working definitions, action research was perceived early on as action-oriented, collaborative, and creative. As the semester progressed, students defined action research as more decision-driven, systematic, and reflective. By the end of the semester, students highlighted the significance of action research as teacher-centered, highly reflective, and a legitimate form of research.
Starting Point Speeches
Each graduate student presented a five-minute starting point speech at the beginning of the semester. The purpose of the starting point speech was to help students begin to articulate a research focus and its educational significance, the general state of affairs or situation; an explanation of the facts of the situation; factors to change or modify in order to improve the situation; and ethical concerns. Table 3 summarized three distinct components of students’ starting point speeches.
Table 3
Students’ Initial Starting Points
for Action Research.
|
Student |
Problem |
General state of affairs one wishes to change or improve |
Factors to change or modify in order to improve the
situation |
|
Tom |
Pre-service elementary
science teachers lack understanding of technology integration in the science
classroom |
Improve pre-service
elementary science teachers ability to reflect critically on how to integrate
technology in the science classroom Enhancing my understanding
of the process necessary to foster collaborative reflection |
Establish a small group of
students to engage in reflection on technology integration Enhance my role as a
facilitator of group Make group interactions
more member-driven vs. facilitator-directed |
|
Michelle |
Students do not participate
regularly in my lab section of an environmental science course for
pre-service elementary science teachers |
Improve my instructional
practice so I can stimulate discussion and interest among students Increase my understanding
of how my students can help inform my practice |
Gather weekly feedback from
students about my instruction through formative assessments |
|
Lauren |
Botany students in this
course appear disinterested and unmotivated Instructor uses traditional
approach to instruction (e.g. lecture) |
Improve and empower my role
as a TA by incorporating a series small group activities that promote
cooperation and participation among all students in lab Change the instructor’s
instructional techniques by sharing ideas for group activities Heighten my awareness of
how small groups function |
Design and implement a
series of small group activities they require participation from all students Evaluate the impact of
these activities on student interest and motivation |
The
research problems posited by students were grounded in two areas: 1) improving
instructional practice and 2) increasing understanding of that practice. All
three graduate students identified problems that were central to their own
instruction. Michelle and Lauren were eager to test out and incorporate new
techniques in their lab sections while Tom was interested in setting up a novel
reflection group using strategies that promoted shared leadership. All three
students were also interested in improving the understanding of what happens
when they integrate these strategies.
First-Order
Results Presented by Graduate Students
What follows are
the graduate students’ personal and reflective accounts of their experiences in
engaging in action research with pre-service science teachers and undergraduate
science students. In these storied
experiences, each graduate student described: 1) the focus for his/her action
research study; 2) his/her action plan; 3) dilemmas encountered; and 4) lessons
learned as a result of engaging in action research. Their storied accounts of becoming
researchers of their own practice give life to the efforts graduate students as
teaching assistants make everyday to increase their understanding of the
complex and incomplete nature of teaching science for pre-service science
teachers.
Tom’s inquiry
into collaborative reflection among pres-service elementary science teachers
The focus of my
action research study was to examine ways I could foster collaborative
reflection on using technology in the elementary science classroom. The context
of my study was an undergraduate biology course for pre-service elementary
science teachers. The challenge for me was to find ways to facilitate
collaborative reflection among pre-service elementary science teachers who were
inexperienced in reflective practice, collaboration, and technology
integration.
My study entailed meeting with six pre-service science teachers (who were 2 to 3 semesters away from student teaching) as a collaborative group and engaging in reflective discussions about their ideas and concerns for integrating technology in the science classroom. I collected data through small group discussions (4 to 6 meetings), semi-structured interviews (3 per pre-service teacher), e-journaling (bi-weekly), and classroom observations (app. 3 per pre-service teacher). Simultaneously, I recorded my personal reflections of each meeting so I could develop a better understanding of my role as a facilitator for collaborative reflection. When I analyzed the discussion and interview transcripts and my own reflective journal entries, I learned that there were three key components to establishing and practicing collaborative reflection. Participants must have a thorough understanding of what collaborative reflection means and be willing to share their own personal needs and expectations for the group to function. In addition, the facilitator must work effectively at establishing and sustaining a community of practice.
My experience with
action research has given me a new tool that I can use to help me refine and
improve my practice as a teacher educator.
Instead of viewing action research as a way to fix what is wrong with my
practice, I now see action research as a continuing process of growth and
improvement.
Michelle’s self study in an
environmental science course for pre-service elementary science teachers
My
action research study was a reflective self-study to improve my teaching
practices as a graduate TA in an environmental science course for pre-service
elementary science teachers. I wanted to
learn if and how my lab instruction helped students develop a better
understanding and appreciation of issues in environmental science.
To
determine my students’ initial concerns, I developed and piloted a series of
formative assessments that I administered after each lab session. These
assessment techniques included a one-minute paper; the muddiest point
assessment; and open-ended surveys. Each assessment focused on identifying key
concerns students reported having difficulty with and possible areas for
improvement with my instruction. Using open coding procedures, I determined
that I needed to address the following aspects of my practice: 1) relate my students’ learning in the course
to their work as prospective science teachers; and 2) provide more thorough
background information prior to each lab to help students develop a better
understanding of the lab topics.
With
the completion of my reflective self-study, my views of action research have
greatly changed. I have learned that
action research is a cyclical process and reflection is an important component
within this cycle. Also, that action
research is a collaborative effort, where input from colleagues is crucial to
the successful progression and completion of my own research study. In regards to my self-study, I have learned
the importance of feedback from my students in informing my teaching practices
and will continue to use assessments in my future career as a teacher
educator.
Lauren’s
attempts at integrating small group activities in a botany course
The
focus of my action research was to improve botany students’ interests and
understandings of the subject matter through small group activities. The course
was an undergraduate botany course that consisted of traditional lecture and
lab sessions with little room for small group interactions. I decided to design
and implement collaborative group work activities for two reasons: 1) to
increase student interest in the course; 2) to improve students’ understanding
of the subject matter through authentic experiences.
My action strategies included different techniques that supported small group interactions. Two examples included: 1) an interactive Jeopardy review session; and 2) a jigsaw activity using dichotomous keys. Both activities required students to work in small teams, take on specific roles, and work effectively to determine key information related to the course topics. To determine the impact of these particular activities, I administered pre- and post-surveys, conducted classroom observations, reviewed supporting documents (i.e. student work), and recorded my reflections of each lesson. The results indicated that collaborative social interactions among students improved their understanding of the subject matter and their perspectives on the course. By communicating with their peers, the students achieved a realistic sense of scientific activities. This research influenced my teaching beliefs by reinforcing the importance of providing students with experiences that are student-centered, collaborative, and authentic. By systematically and critically examining my own thoughts and actions, I have become more mindful of the needs of my students.
Second-Order Results
As the graduate students wrote their individual action
research papers, we convened as a group to do a cross-case analysis of the
individual reports. The rationale for this analysis was to conduct a
second-order action research: action research on the action research process
(Elliott, 1991).
Each
paper and accompanying PowerPoint presentation was reviewed by two other
readers, including the instructor. In weekly class meetings, we shared our
reflections on one another’s work and identified recurring findings grounded in
the papers. We identified three major themes related to the ways the graduate
teaching assistants as researchers gained new knowledge, developed a greater
self-awareness and a deeper understanding of science teacher education. These
themes were the following: 1) generating and understanding one’s own personal
practical knowledge; 2) conserving new knowledge by improving one’s practice in
science teacher education; and 3) transforming new knowledge through
understanding the landscape of science teacher education. What follows are
brief summaries of the overall findings under each theme.
Generating
and Understanding One’s Own Personal Practical Knowledge
Tom’s
interest in collaborative reflection dramatically shaped the practical and
technical knowledge he gained from facilitating more interactive discussions on
technology integration with pre-service elementary science teachers. Tom
identified and implemented key strategies for fostering collaborative
reflection and as a result learned first-hand how pre-service teachers desired
to use technology yet knew little about how to integrate it in the science
classroom.
Michelle’s
self-study aided her in the construction of new practical knowledge necessary
to develop more open-ended, whole class discussions on science topics central
to her own students’ development as pre-service elementary science teachers. By
designing and administering regular formative assessments, Michelle recognized
a disconnect between what she thought were interesting and engaging activities
and what students reported as difficult and irrelevant to future teaching
careers. Using these results, Michelle simplified lab procedures, interacted
with students individually in a nurturing manner, and frequently pointed out to
students how the lab activities applied to their work as teachers.
Lauren’s
results on incorporating group activities included increased student
participation and performance on class assignments. In the end, the graduate
students gained the practical knowledge necessary to create, test out, and
evaluate their own ideas.
Conserving
New Knowledge by Improving One’s Practice in Science Teacher Education
Engaging in collaborative action research allowed the
graduate teaching assistants to shift their assumptions, self–perceptions, and
knowledge of pre-service science teachers, towards feelings of confidence,
competence, and self-reliance as promising teacher educators in science
education. Weekly reflective writing and oral reporting of reflections helped
the graduate teaching assistants shift their self-perceptions from passive TA’s
to active teacher educators.
Issues,
such as power, authority, and mastery of the curriculum permeated their roles
as graduate teaching assistants. On one hand, the graduate students were
instructors, while on the other hand, they were students of the very processes
they were studying and attempting to teach. On occasion, the graduate students
grappled with the following questions: What kind of power or authority do we
have to ask our students to do more than what they are required to do? Would
students respond in the same way to a faculty member? How do I discuss with
faculty discrepancies in our teaching philosophies? This power differential
became more obvious when the graduate students began implementing their action
plans. Each week the graduate students observed one another structure new
learning opportunities for their students, share their professional
experiences, and connect practical experiences with their courses in order to
make teaching and learning more meaningful for themselves and their students.
Inquiries into their own experiences as pre-service science teachers helped the
graduate teaching assistants recognize the limitations of traditional
approaches to science teacher education (e.g. lecture) and a prescribed curriculum;
while reflections on their own practice helped them recognize that much of
their practice as teacher educators was grounded in the lessons learned as they
reflected on the theory and practice from their graduate studies.
Understanding the Landscape of Science
Teacher Education
While understanding one’s own personal practical
knowledge and improving one’s practice are crucial qualities in a science
teacher educator, it is also important to understand the landscape beyond the
university classroom, to frame the individual challenges within a larger
institutional and societal change. The graduate teaching assistants learned how
pre-service teachers often felt frustrated in their efforts to: 1) bridge
theory into practice; 2) to merge science content knowledge with pedagogical
knowledge; and 3) to address standards through inquiry science teaching. They
learned that this frustration came from the lack of continuity between teacher
preparation courses, field experiences in the schools, conflicting cooperating
teachers’ viewpoints and practices, and significant gaps in their science
content courses.
In sum, the graduate students heightened their awareness
of their own professional development and growth. Engaging in action research
allowed the graduate students to do what they considered legitimate research.
Much of their work was credited to risk taking activities, such as infusing
instructional change and critical feedback, gained through participation and
support within our collaborative action research meetings. Action research
literature documents the transformation that participants experienced as they
engage in intense, self-critical inquiry of their own practice and are offered
a supportive collaborative group of critical friends through which they mediate
their ideas and refine their practices (Capobianco, in press; Feldman, 1994;
Hollingsworth, 1994).
Conclusion
If
the aim of our doctoral programs in teacher education is to educate and prepare
our graduate students to become research scholars and effective teacher
educators, then we need to pay particular attention to the ways our graduate
programs (i.e. professors, course offerings, and curriculum) provide
opportunities for our students to develop the habits of mind and ability to do
three things well: 1) creatively generate new knowledge; 2) critically conserve
valuable and useful ideas, and 3) responsibly transform those understandings
though writing, teaching, and application. The doctoral degree at its core is a
research degree. Demonstrating one’s ability to conduct research and
scholarship that make unique contributions and meets the standards of
credibility is the culminating experience of the graduate degree. Hence, action
research can serve as the vehicle through which our graduate students can frame
and re-frame these habits of mind and abilities. Engaging in sustained,
systematic, self-critical inquiry allows our graduate students the ability to
merge both research and the scholarship of teaching and transform a common appreciation
for the two to one of application and deeper understanding.
References
Abell,
S.,
Capobianco, B. M. (in press). Science teachers’ attempts at integrating feminist pedagogy through collaborative action research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
Capobianco,
B. M. (in press). A Self-Study of the Role of Technology in Promoting
Inquiry-Based Science Teaching. Journal
of Science Teacher Education.
Capobianco,
B., & Feldman, A. (April, 2002). Formative assessment action research: A
study of teacher learning by using technology. A paper presented at the
National Association for Research in Science Teaching International Conference.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2005, July). Preparing stewards of the discipline. Retrieved December 1, 2005, from http://carnegiefoundation.org/general/sub.asp?key=29&subkey=473&topkey=29.
Carr,
W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming
critical: Education, knowledge, and action research.
Clandinin,
J., & Connelly, T. (2002). Narrative
inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research.
Cochran-Smith,
M., & Lytle, S. (1992). Inside/Outside:
Teacher research and knowledge.
Elliott,
J. (1991). Action research for
educational change.
Feldman,
A. (1994). Erzberger’s dilemma: Validity in action research and science
teachers’ need to know. Science
Education, 78(1), 83-101.
Hodson, D., & Bencze, L. (1998). Becoming critical about practical work: Changing views changing practice through action research. International Journal of Science Education, 20(6), 683-694.
Hollingsworth,
S. (1994). Teacher research and urban
literacy education: Lessons and conversations in a feminist key.
Miles,
M. B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative
data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. (2nd ed.).
McNiff,
J. (2002). Action
research: Principles and practice. (2nd
ed.).
Stenhouse,
L. (1985). An introduction to curriculum
research and development.
Strauss,
A. and Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques.
Tabachnick, B. R., & Zeichner, K. M. (1999). Idea and action: Action research and the development of conceptual change teaching of science. Science Education, 83(3), 309-322.
vanZee, E., Lay, D., & Roberts, D. (2003). Fostering collaborative inquiries by prospective and
practicing elementary and middle school teachers. Science Education, 87(4), 588-612.