can inquiry and reflection be contagious? science teachers, students, and action research

Can Inquiry and Reflection be Contagious? ScienceTeachers, Students, and Action Research

Kimberly Lebak • Ron Tinsley

Published online: 9 October 2010

� The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2010

Abstract This study reports the transformations of 3 science teachers who con-

ducted action research projects following a model, unique to our graduate program,

which follows the theoretical tenets of adult and transformative learning theory.

Teachers video their teaching, engage in weekly peer group collaborative reflection

sessions, collaborate with students, and consult with other sources to identify goals

for improving their teaching practices, develop action plans, and analyze the results

of their actions. As a result of this process, all 3 teachers changed their pedagogical

approach from a teacher centered textbook driven approach to a student centered

inquiry based approach. Implications of using this model as a powerful means of

professional development for science teachers are explored.

Keywords Action research � Professional development � Reflection �Collaboration

Introduction

Current literature on the teaching of science challenges educators to develop and

facilitate inquiry-based learning processes with students. For more than a decade,

US national organizations have called for the development of teachers who are both

knowledgeable in science content and have the pedagogical skills necessary to lead

inquiry-based, student-centered learning (American Association for the Advance-

ment of Science [AAAS] 1993; Association for Science Teacher Education [ASTE]

K. Lebak (&) � R. Tinsley

Richard Stockton College of New Jersey, School of Education,

Box 195, Pomona, NJ 08240, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

R. Tinsley

e-mail: [email protected]

123

J Sci Teacher Educ (2010) 21:953–970

DOI 10.1007/s10972-010-9216-x

2004; National Research Council [NRC] 1996; National Research Council 2000).

The National Science Education Standards define scientific inquiry as ‘‘the diverse

ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on

the evidence derived from their work’’ (NRC 2000, p. 23). According to the

National Science Education Standards students in K-12 science classrooms need to

do and understand scientific inquiry. The National Science Teachers Association

(NSTA) maintains the position that ‘‘[s]cientific inquiry reflects how scientists come

to understand the natural world, and it is at the heart of how students learn’’ (NSTA

2006a). The NSTA advocates a change in emphasis from students memorizing facts

and terminology to students investigating science through active learning.

Implementing the instruction called for by the NRC and NSTA demands a

significant shift in what teachers typically do in a science lesson. However,

according to Fradd and Lee (1999), many teachers have not embraced this

pedagogical approach, which encourages students to think scientifically due to the

complexity of teaching in a non-traditional, inquiry-based manner. In order to

implement inquiry-based, student centered learning, teachers need opportunities for

peer collaboration and reflection to develop as practitioners. The NRC (1996)

recommends, ‘‘Whenever possible, the context for learning to teach science should

involve actual students, real student work, and outstanding curriculum materials.

Trial and error in teaching situations, continual thoughtful reflection, interaction

with peers, and much repetition of teaching science content combine to develop the

kind of integrated understanding that characterizes expert teachers of science’’

(p. 9). Despite efforts at the national level, our interactions with in-service science

teachers over the past several years confirm that Fradd and Lee’s findings are still

evident. Many science teachers still do not practice science as inquiry with their

students.

Expanded Action Research Process

The Master of Arts in Education (MAED) program at our institution is designed to

help practicing teachers develop into reflective practitioner researchers. Teachers in

our program engage in action research as the capstone experience in earning their

degrees. We accept premises expressed by McNiff and Whitehead that ‘‘[a]ction

research is a form of enquiry that enables practitioners everywhere to investigate and

evaluate their work,’’ and that teachers’ ‘‘accounts come to stand as their own practical

theories of practice, from which others can learn if they wish’’ (2006, p. 7). This article

documents and describes 3 case studies of science teachers who discovered ways to

engage their students in scientific inquiry and transform their teaching practices

through engaging in our expanded model of the action research process.

Action research is generally profiled as a cyclical process of planning, acting, and

reflecting that both researchers and practitioners use to put theory into practice and

possibly effect changes in real-life social settings (Carr and Kemmis 1986; Lewin

1947). Educators world-wide have embraced the notion that engaging in action

research can empower teachers as classroom researchers who improve their

teaching practices and increase their students’ learning outcomes (Carr and Kemmis

954 K. Lebak, R. Tinsley

123

1986; Diez and Blackwell 1999; Fullan 1992). ‘‘Systematic reflection in the form of

action research can provide the stimulus for changing and improving practice in

order to make it appropriate for the unique individuals with whom we work’’

(Mertler 2006, p. 14). Action research can play a valuable role in promoting a

conceptual change approach to science teaching (Tabachnick and Zeichner 1999).

Many graduate education programs have incorporated action research projects into

their requirements for advanced degrees. Our MAED program began requiring an

action research driven capstone project in 2004. Over the past 5 years, as instructors

of the capstone, we have developed our own unique adaptation of the action

research process. The distinguishing feature of our process is an expanded reflection

cycle (see Fig. 1). Participants in this process engage in multiple spheres of

reflection on a weekly basis over a semester to identify goals for improving their

teaching practices, develop action plans, and analyze the results of their actions.

Our model is informed by the theoretical tenets of adult and transformative

learning theory (Cranton 2005; Mezirow 1991). Transformative learning requires

multiple levels of reflection and the use of peer collaboration. Our expanded action

research process empowers teachers to transform into reflective practitioner

researchers by incorporating more opportunities for on-going reflection throughout

the course of their projects. We have found that teachers are able to make

tremendous strides by engaging in the weekly collaborative peer reflection sessions

(Tinsley and Lebak 2009).

Following our process, teachers periodically video their teaching practices, share

videos with their peer groups in weekly meetings, and begin engaging in

PLANNINGASSIMILATION OF

REFLECTIONSTEACHING

REFLECTION

CYCLE

SHARE TEACHING

VIDEOS WITH

PEERS

COLLABORATIVE REFLECTION &

DIALOGUE WITH PEERS

COLLABORATIVE DIALOGUE WITH

STUDENTS

CONSULTATION WITH OTHER

RESOURCES AS NEEDED

CONTINUED SELF-

REFLECTION

Fig. 1 Expanded action research process with a focus on collaborative reflection

Inquiry and Reflection 955

123

collaborative reflective dialogues that grow from watching their videos. They call

upon one another’s varied experiences and knowledge to collectively broaden the

possibilities for reflection, identifying meaningful goals for instructional improve-

ments, and developing action plans for achieving goals. Each new video triggers the

beginning of another collaborative reflection cycle and helps to guide the process

(see Fig. 1).

Methodology

The cases reported in this article were drawn from a group of 19 teachers who

enacted our action research process (see Fig. 1) from January to May, 2009. These

teachers had just completed a general research seminar, from September to

December, 2008, in which they had developed tentative plans for research projects

in consultation with us and their peers. We documented the teachers’ journeys as

practitioner researchers so that we could qualitatively understand and analyze them

in retrospect. We kept weekly journals of our observations and reflections on their

activities for 14 weeks. The 19 teachers kept their own field notes, making entries at

least once per week over a 14-week period. We also used unmanned video cameras

to record each peer group’s collaborative dialogue sessions, occurring once per

week from January through the end of April, 2009, yielding approximately 24 h of

video for each group of teachers. Teachers also videotaped their teaching practice a

minimum of 5 times during the semester. After all of the projects had been

completed, we compiled documentation of the unique journey each teacher

participant. We identified 3 teachers’ cases that shared similar kinds of change. In

each of these cases, the teacher began the process following a textbook-driven,

teacher-centered instructional model, and, through her own process of inquiry and

collaborative reflection, arrived at ways to actively engage students in the practice

of science.

Case study methodology provides a systematic way of looking at events,

collecting data, analyzing and reporting the results in order for researchers to gain a

greater understanding of why the instance happened as it did, and what might

become important to look at more extensively in future research (Gerring 2005;

Stake 1995). We looked back at our journals to locate points of interest we had

noted in these 3 cases. We identified and transcribed sections of each teacher’s peer

group sessions and identified salient passages from the teachers’ field notes and final

projects.

We utilized open coding to identify emerging themes. As commonalities

emerged, we established 3 categories of evidence for thematic coding: (a) change in

teaching practice, (b) change in level of student engagement, and (c) change in

teacher’s perspective on practice. We found numerous points of textual evidence

falling into each of these categories emanating from 3 different agencies: the

subject, the subject’s students, and the subject’s peers. With multiple pieces of

evidence from multiple sources and agencies, we established the internal integrity of

each case to allow for relevant cross-case analyses from which to draw our

conclusions. The identification of themes from the various sources allowed for


123

triangulation of the data across cases (Stake 1995). The following sections

summarize the pertinent data establishing each case. While these accounts are

factually accurate, the actual names of the participants involved are not used in this

article.

Findings

Case 1: Lorraine

At the time of beginning this process, Lorraine was a veteran teacher with 15 years

of experience. Lorraine taught in a fifth grade elementary setting and split her

instructional time teaching science, social studies, and language arts. She was

experienced in all of her teaching areas and considered herself to be knowledgeable

in science. Her students were a diverse group of fifth graders with a wide range of

backgrounds, interests, and readiness levels.

Lorraine was working with a peer group made up of Katherine, a middle school

teacher with 12 years of experience, Jack, a middle school teacher with 3 years of

experience, and Melissa, an elementary teacher with 5 years of experience. Lorraine

assumed that her years of teaching, good control of student behavior, and

knowledge of the curriculum would come through in her video, so she did not

hesitate in recording a typical science lesson in her fifth grade classroom. She

showed it to her peer group in their second meeting.

Evolution of Goals

On the video Lorraine’s peer group saw her students sitting in their desks while

Lorraine lectured about the parts of a plant cell. Lorraine then gave her students a

worksheet on the structure of a plant cell. The students worked independently to

label the parts and answer written questions, and then they turned in the worksheets.

After viewing this video, her peer group praised her content knowledge, but

expressed concerns with the lack of student engagement in the science lesson.

Katherine: You obviously know the parts of a plant cell.

Melissa: You certainly do, but do you think you could present all the material

in a different way?

Jack: I wondered that too. The students were not very involved in the lesson.

I am actually not sure that they know the parts of the plant cell. (Peer group

session, January 26, 2009)

Lorraine was taken aback by their comments. In her field notes, Lorraine

recorded some of the reactions of her peers:

They pointed out that the lesson was more teacher-directed than student-

centered. They immediately saw that many of the students were not engaged

during the whole group part of the lesson. They said I spent too much time

focusing each group on the information. My questions were very leading


123

questions, and I was answering my own questions. (Field notes, January 27,

2009)

The next day Lorraine assessed her students’ understanding of the concept taught

on the video. She quickly found that her students had little understanding of the

plant cell. What she had taught was not learned.

After reflecting further on her peers’ observations and her students’ lack of

learning, she watched her video again through a new lens. The collaborative

reflection offered by her peers followed by her own self-reflection on their feedback

led Lorraine to reexamine her entire pedagogical approach to teaching science. She

realized that she wanted to do things differently, but she did not have the

background or experience to know on her own exactly what to do. The next week

she returned to her group and asked her peers for ideas on improving her teaching.

Lorraine: I watched the video again and also gave a short quiz to my students.

They really didn’t get anything from that lesson. We talked about the issues in

the lesson last week, but I think I need some help in figuring out a direction for

changing my instruction

Katherine: Over the past couple years, I have really made a push to teach

inquiry based science. I have gone to a lot of training on inquiry based

instruction and have really found the students are more actively engaged when

they ask their own questions

Jack: My supervisor has been working with teachers in our school to help us

implement problem based learning

Melissa: Is problem based learning like cooperative problem solving? I’ve

heard some other people talking about it lately

Lorraine: I am interested in hearing more about this. How do I do problem

based learning? (Peer group session, February 2, 2009)

After further discussions with her peer group and consultation with current

literature on best practices for teaching science, she grew determined to utilize

problem-based learning as an instructional framework for facilitating student

inquiry. Lorraine decided to focus on developing and implementing a student

centered inquiry based unit on biomes.

Acting, Collaborating, and Reflecting

Lorraine formed her students into teams and assigned each team member a role to

perform. The groups worked together to begin to understand the tasks before them

and the many lines of inquiry they would be pursuing.

Shortly after beginning the biome unit using problem based learning, she asked

her students for feedback on how they felt about undertaking the project. Her

students provided her with very positive feedback. She recorded her students’

comments, such as the following, in her field notes:

‘‘This is exciting, much better than taking notes.’’

‘‘We get to do the real jobs of scientists!’’


123

‘‘I love learning science this way. We’re going to be the school’s energy

police.’’ (Field notes, February 11, 2009)

Lorraine’s peer group also quickly saw a large increase in her students’ levels of

engagement when they viewed her next teaching video. In her field notes, Lorraine

recorded her reflections after watching the video of her initial implementation of

inquiry-based instruction:

Once I started implementing inquiry based instruction via the biome unit, the

next video showed increased levels of engagement already. The students were

in the computer lab and were clearly shown listening to the directions I was

giving to them on what role they had and what task they were required to

complete. Normally, a number of students would be turned around playing

with the computer as I was giving directions, but this time, the video clearly

showed them all paying attention. (Field notes, February 11, 2009)

Lorraine continued to grow in her ability to implement inquiry based instruction

during the months of conducting her project. Throughout the process her peer group

continued to provide guidance that led her to continuously improve her practice and

ultimately show clear evidence of greatly increased student engagement in her

classroom.

My peers made the following suggestions to raise the level of engagement and

thinking even higher in my students: Keep the key points with essential

questions that I want them to know in their folders; and have formative

assessments built in by using rubrics. These suggestions were implemented,

and later, when levels of student engagement [in video four] were compared to

the other videos, student engagement was shown to be considerably higher

than the students demonstrated in video one. (Field notes, March 16, 2009)

Lorraine’s students continued to help her refine her instruction. She videotaped

her students working on and presenting their biome projects. Then she instructed

students to evaluate their own learning through watching the videos. The students

made suggestions for ways to improve the unit next year. Furthermore, their

feedback helped Lorraine improve her understanding of their learning needs and

take immediate actions in response. Reflecting on practice led her to begin reflecting

in practice.

Indicators of Transformation

At the end of the project, Lorraine reflected upon her journey in her journal:

I remember the first night when some of my peers watched my first video.

I was determined to teach through direct instruction. Even after I decided

that I wanted to change, I was scared to death of switching to problem-based

learning. My peers were instrumental in encouraging this change. I can’t

believe what a difference there is in my teaching and in my students’ learning.

(Final project, May 4, 2009)


123

Lorraine became both a more effective science teacher and a more self-directed

practitioner through this process. Her reflections indicated true transformation of

professional practice:

I feel this experience has helped make me a better teacher. It truly made me

the ‘‘guide on the side’’—there if the students needed me, yet willing to let

them explore a topic based on what they found interesting. It also showed me

that being a ‘guide on the side’ is not just sitting back and answering questions

as they come up. It requires a higher level of reflective awareness as a

facilitator. (Final project, May 4, 2009)

Case 2: Manda

Manda was still a new teacher at the beginning of this process, with only 2 years of

teaching experience. She held credentials as an elementary teacher, special

education teacher, and middle school science teacher. Her science class consisted

of six male students, 10 or 11 years of age, and all diagnosed with Asperger’s

Syndrome—a disability falling under the spectrum of autism disorders.

Manda was working with a group of peers including Kia, a middle school teacher

with 14 years of experience, Alan, an intermediate schoolteacher with 6 years of

experience, and Misty, an elementary school teacher with 4 years of experience.

Evolution of Goals

Before showing her first teaching video to her peers, Manda described her students

and her teaching methods to her peers:

My students all have Asperger’s Syndrome. It is important to me that my

students understand the science content. So, I focus my science instruction on

understanding concepts by using graphic organizers. Up to this point, I have

been working hard on helping them organize ideas, take notes and learn proper

study skills, but all through worksheets, graphic organizers, and diagrams.

They have a difficult time making sense of the concepts presented in the

textbook. They don’t do very well on the tests. The idea is that using the

graphic organizers should help them make sense of the material. (Peer group

session, January 26, 2009)

Her peers then watched the lesson intently. In the video they saw Manda pointing

to parts of the science textbook and explaining its contents while the students

recorded main ideas on a graphic organizer. At the end of the video, her peers

offered their initial feedback:

Alan: You are very well organized with your materials; however, the students

do not seem very engaged

Misty asked her to replay a part of the video where the students are writing notes.

Misty: Do you see this part? Their heads are on the desk and their eyes were

everywhere but on their notes


123

Kia: Do they ever get to do science?

Manda: Well, I am not sure that these kids are ready for that kind of thing.

You think they could do experiments and things? (Peer group session, January

26, 2009)

Her peers began discussing how they try to use a more hands-on approach to

teaching science:

Kia: You should provide opportunities for your students to use their hands and

brains simultaneously. It would increase their interest in the subject as well as

their content knowledge

Alan: The kids really do learn it if they experience it—do it with their hands,

see it with their eyes. (Peer group session, January 26, 2009)

As a result of the peer dialogue, Manda reviewed the tape of her teaching on her

own after the first peer reflection session. She wrote in her field notes about the

impact of what her peers helped her to see.

It became apparent that the students were not interested in the learning, and

even worse, they were not retaining much information. I knew I needed to

think about teaching in a different way. (Field notes, February 2, 2009)

She decided to begin by getting feedback from her students. She conducted

student interviews and recorded her findings in her field notes.

Overall the students were interested in science, which I expected. They each

expressed great interest in doing experiments and that they would rather ‘do

things than read from the book or take notes.’ One student told me, ‘I love

science, but I get bored when there is too much vocabulary and so many notes

to take.’ My students and my peers are all telling me that I need to change the

way I do things. (Field notes, February 9, 2009)

The student interviews helped provide direction for Manda’s action plan. Manda

set a general yet potentially powerful goal for herself.

My goal is to increase student interest and involvement, which will hopefully

aid in student learning and retention of material. (Field notes, February 9,

2009)


Manda began to change her instruction right away by introducing inquiry based

practices into her lessons. She began with a unit on classification. First the students

began trying to grow fungi in petri dishes and observe its growth over 5 days. The

students made predictions about which object would grow fungi first, which would

grow the most, and speed of growth. Manda wrote of these days in her field notes:

They were scientists—taking what they knew—predicting and observing. It

was amazing to watch what they were doing. (Field notes, March 9, 2009)


123

Manda began to notice the students’ abilities to make connections between their

own experiences and the science concepts she was teaching. After watching the

fungi grow, the boys were questioning about how quickly an orange peel had turned

green. In her field notes Manda noted the following exchange she had with one of

her students.

We read about mitosis together, and then before I knew it, they began to

connect the reproduction of the cells in the book, to their fungi experiment.

One student commented, ‘So it’s like my toy army. They just keep splitting

and making new men—it just keeps getting bigger and bigger.’ (Field notes,

March 9, 2009)

While showing a video made during these fungi experiments to her peers, they

commented on the differences they could see in the students.

Misty: I can’t believe these are the same boys. They are so vocal and into the

experiments

Alan: Listen! Did you hear what that boy said? They remembered that about

fungi

Manda: I am so proud. They remembered that concept

Kia: They really are acting as scientists already. What a change in such a short

time! (Peer group session, February 23, 2009)

Despite the rapid progress Manda made in changing her instructional strategies,

she began to question if she was truly incorporating inquiry into her science

lessons—or if she was simply getting them to replicate tasks and give the

appearance of ‘‘hands-on learning.’’ She continued to share her teaching videos and

brought up her concerns with her peer group.

Manda: I don’t want to do activities for the sake of activities. In this video the

students used the supplies to create clouds. They loved it and it was hands-on,

but I don’t know if it is truly inquiry

Kia: Inquiry starts from a question. I think you are doing parts of inquiry.

Students are engaged, they are exploring scientific concepts; however, you are

guiding them through that process. I think you need to move on to the next

level

Manda: I don’t know where the next level is. I am having difficulty figuring

that part out

Kia: It is hard. But I think you are the point where the students need to now

develop their own questions and ways to find answers to those questions. (Peer

group session, February 23, 2009)

For the next several weeks, Manda continued to assess her students’ progress and

share the results with her peers.

In the final teaching video Manda shared with peers, she had the students

complete a food chain web and do inquiry into the consequences of disruptions in

the food chain. After watching the video, Alan noted how students were now

drawing conclusions from their own inquiries.


123

Alan: Did you hear when the one student said, ‘So it seems just like dominos.

If you knock one over, the whole thing goes down.’ Now you never made that

point to them before. He came to his own conclusions—answering his own

question

Manda: Yes, they are really starting to construct their own knowledge of

science. The students have become more confident and empowered in their

own minds

Kia: I think you know they are doing inquiry now. (Peer group session, March

16, 2009)


At the end of the process, Manda recorded her thoughts on the overall action

research process she had experienced.

Watching myself in video forced me to assess, analyze, and alter my teaching

in a more effective way than by solely looking at student progress and grades.

As I reflect on it all now, it was clear that by incorporating more science

experiences, and by allowing the students to drive my lessons through their

questioning and realizations, they were becoming more engaged learners. I am

determined to never remain static in my teaching. I will continue to evaluate

and reflect in all areas of my teaching, and most important I will continue the

methods behind this action research project in my science teaching. (Final

project, May 4, 2009)

Case 3: Alita

Alita was a high school biology teacher who had 5 years of teaching experience at

the beginning of this process. She was teaching in a culturally diverse high school

with students of varying levels of readiness in science.

Alita’s peer group was made up of Susan and John, both high school teachers

with 4 years of experience, and Karen, also a high school teacher but with 12 years

of experience.

Evolution of goals

Before she showed her first teaching video made during one of her general biology

classes to her peer group, she provided them with an overview of her typical

instructional strategies:

Alita: I frequently use traditional teacher-centered lessons to present

information to my general biology classes. I know many students seem bored

by the teacher-centered lessons. So, I have videotaped a typical class period

during my 6th period class. The topic is on the structure of DNA. Can you look

specifically at how engaged my students are during my class discussion and

PowerPoint presentation? (Peer group session, January 26, 2009)


123

The group watched her video and quietly made notes. After the video Alita

looked to her peers for comments. These comments were instrumental in Alita’s

formation of her goal.

John: You obviously know your content area. However, in my observations I

noticed that there were only 3 students who answered your questions during

the class discussion piece.

Karen: I thought the same thing. I only counted 3 students involved in the

discussion, and most appeared rather disinterested in learning about DNA.

Alita: I know I need to try different ways to help students become more active

learners. I am just not sure what to do.

Susan: What about doing more science experiments? Labs?

Alita: I just am never sure how to do it with only 42 min of class time. We

don’t have lab time and by the time they get in class and we start an

experiment, the bell is ringing.

Susan: Ooh, that is a real problem. You can’t make the periods any longer.

John: Why don’t you ask your students? (Peer group session, January 26,

2009)

Alita returned to her classroom and gave her biology students a survey to find out

more on their preferred modes of instruction for biology. She analyzed the data and

found that her students would like to learn biology through labs as their first choice,

through webquests second. Doing practice worksheets came in third, and listening

to lectures was shown to be students’ least preferred choice for learning biology.

The results of this survey forced Alita to look for ways of designing instruction.

Alita returned to her peer group the following week to share her students’ results.

They discussed how loudly the data spoke to them. The students were not against

learning science. They just were not interested in lectures.

Alita: I know I have spoken about my challenges in implementing labs in the

classroom. But, I would like to try and infuse something different in my

teaching.

John: I think you may want to think about trying to infuse technology.

Students like to use the internet, and it would give you another instructional

mode. (Peer group session, February 2, 2009)

The group continued to discuss ways technology can be used in instruction and

how it can be individually empowering to students. While they all agreed that labs

would be the best way to anchor science learning, they also saw the time constraints

prevented Alita from conducting lengthy labs during regular class periods. By the

end of the peer group’s discussion, Alita had decided on her goal for her project. She

noted her decision in her field notes:

I have been thinking about developing webquests. If I develop webquests so

the students are in charge of finding the information and then coming up with

some of their own ideas before we refine it further, it could provide greater

involvement from them in their learning up front. I am going to give that a try.

(Field notes, February 3, 2009)


123


Following the peer reflection session, Alita created a webquest on understanding the

biology behind genetic traits. In order to analyze the levels of her students’

engagement in the webquest, she videoed them working on it, and then she facilitated

a follow-up debriefing session with them. She wanted to hear what they had to say

about doing their first biology webquest and compare that to what she saw them

doing in the video. She then shared all of this data and feedback with her peer group.

Alita and her peers noted many changes regarding student motivation and

engagement levels.

Susan: The students are all on-task and look engaged in the activity.

John: Look. In their groups, students are discussing which traits they had and

they are comparing their traits with other students.

As she watched the video with her peers, Alita offered some points of interest to

the group:

Alita: Look at these students over here. This group of students was typically

always disinterested in biology, but they are actively participating in the

webquest.

Karen: You could not tell from this video. All of the students look like they

love biology now.

John: Whether it is because they love it or not, you can tell from what they are

doing and saying that they are engaged in the content.

Susan: You’ve made an impressive step ahead already, Alita. (Peer group

session, February 16, 2009)

During her 8-week genetics unit, Alita implemented two webquests as means of

infusing technology into her instruction and getting away from lecture and note

taking as her main modes of facilitating student learning.

She continued to study her students’ on-task behavior over the implementation of

the unit. She found an increase in on-task behavior during webquests when compared

to lecture/note taking. Her peers noted that students were gaining new knowledge

from the activities and that they were also eager to share this new learning with their

peers, as called for in the collaborative aspects of completing the webquests.


At the conclusion of her genetics unit, Alita wrote in her journal regarding the

changes she had observed in her students over the course of conducting a unit

anchored in the webquests:

I have noticed a change in my students. Many of my students were previously

disengaged in class discussions, but after completing the two webquests,

students that would not normally participate in class discussions were actively

involved and genuinely interested in the subject. I attribute this increased

participation to the use of webquests, which generated levels of interest in the


123

subject that the students had not previously had. The students showed

enthusiasm with using the computers and Internet in a student-centered

activity. (Field notes, April 20, 2009)

Alita’s peers agreed with her final observations as they sat together and watched

the video of students conducting their webquests.

Karen: Wow, look at how into genetic disorders the students are now.

John: I can’t believe the type of questions they are asking each other.

Susan: I know. The key though is that they are asking the questions of each

other.

John: They really know their stuff.

Alita: They are really becoming self-sufficient and self-directed.

Karen: At the beginning you were hesitant to do webquests because of the

amount of preparation. How do you feel now?

Alita: It has been quite a change for me. The work of setting up webquests

aligned to our curriculum is definitely time-consuming. However, the difference

in my students is amazing. They are excited to be here and that has totally

changed how I feel in the classroom. (Peer group session, April 13, 2009)

Alita noted the powerful lessons she was able to learn about students and about

her own teaching through participating in the action research process.

From the action research process, I also saw several changes that affected me as

an educator. Before this project, I had reflected on the success of various lessons

in my head and only made changes to activities that did not work well with my

students. As a result of conducting this project, I am now more aware of the likes

and dislikes of my students, their engagement level, their preferences in learning

styles, and their amount of participation. (Final project, May 4, 2009)

Discussion

The science teachers presented in these case studies wanted to be effective teachers

who engaged their students in the learning of science. However, all 3 of the

teachers, regardless of the number of years teaching, initially struggled to break the

mold of textbook and teacher centered instruction for a variety of reasons.

Interestingly, in each of the cases, participation in this action research model

provided opportunities for self and collaborative critical reflection that challenged

each of the teacher’s traditional methods.

In Lorraine’s case, her peer group initially questioned her teacher centered

approach and suggested problem based learning as an alternative mode of

instruction. Lorraine had to reconsider how she viewed her students’ learning

styles. She had assumed they needed whole class instruction in order to ensure

consistent learning of the content material. She further assumed that a more rigid

traditional instructional structure would always lead to increased learning outcomes

in the long run. However, watching her students on video and hearing the reflective

feedback from her peer group challenged her to rethink how she viewed her


123

students. She opened herself up to the possibility that her students could act as self-

directed learners and challenged herself to design a problem-based learning unit that

would allow the students engage more deeply in science. From the first day of the

unit, Lorraine carefully assessed her students’ learning of the content and was

amazed at their engagement and progress. Near the end of the unit, Lorraine videoed

the students presenting some of their findings and then had them view their own

videos and discuss them. She used her students’ feedback to help refine the unit plan

for use in the following year.

Manda believed that her students needed more structure due to their special

needs. She felt that the best way she could serve their learning needs was to put the

content into readily accessible visual format using graphic organizers. She had not

believed that her students were capable of doing experiments. Manda’s beliefs on

how her special education students should learn science were immediately

challenged by her peers when they watched her video. Manda heard what her

peers had to say, but sought to find out directly from her students what they actually

felt about her science lessons. Her students told her that they actually liked science,

but they did not like it being all notes from the textbook. They were longing for

more active, hands-on science. As a result of feedback from her peers and her

students, Manda took on the challenge of incorporating inquiry-based lessons into

her science curriculum.

Alita began the process with a concern that her approach to teaching biology was

not meeting the needs of her students. However, she felt powerless to change due to

external time constraints. As she and her peers watched her videos, they all agreed

that student engagement and student learning outcomes would be improved if she

used a more inquiry driven hands-on approach to teaching science. However, none

of them could figure out a way to overcome the time constraints. Her peers

suggested that Alita ask her students. She found that her students would most prefer

to learn through doing labs and hands-on science. But that they also believed they

would learn more from webquests than from the lecture format she had been using.

As Alita realized that she could use that method within the class time allotted, she

developed her action research goals around the use of webquests based upon

feedback from her peers and her students.

Collaboration with peers and students was crucial at each stage of the action

research process for these science teachers. Each of these case studies provides

evidence of how expanding the action research process to include peer reflection

and student feedback can have a profound effect on transforming practice. In the

cases of these 3 teachers, their students’ roles in science class changed from that of

passive observers and note-takers to that of active participants in the processes of

inquiry. The changes in the students’ roles paralleled the changes the teachers

themselves were undergoing while participating in the action research process. This

finding supports work by Capobianco (2007) regarding the relationship between a

teacher’s modeling of reflective practice and its development and use by preservice

science teachers.

We found that teachers changed how they regarded their students at the same

time as they were beginning to see themselves differently as practitioners. Teachers

engaged in inquiry are in turn likely to engage their students in inquiry.


123

Potential for Effective Professional Development of Science Teachers

The NRC (1996) argues that the development of expert science teachers requires

opportunities for reflection, interaction with peers, and repetition of teaching science

content. Our model for action research infuses these recommendations successfully

into a developmental process for science teachers. The NSTA encourages

professional development for practicing teachers and offers a number of research-

based guidelines for designing and implementing professional development

programs for in-service teachers.

The ‘‘Principles Behind Professional Development in Science Education’’

(NSTA, 2006b) include many recommendations that can be met through following

our model of action research, as demonstrated by the cases presented in this article.

In the table below, we provide an alignment between the NSTA’s professional

development principles and our expanded action research model (see Table 1).

Table 1 Alignment of NSTA principles and our model

NSTA principles behind professional development Our expanded action research process

Should be based on student learning needs and

should help science educators address difficulties

students have with subject-matter knowledge and

skills

Teachers discover and focus on their students’

learning needs and develop ways to meet their

students’ difficulties with subject-matter

knowledge and skills

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

Goals for improvement are evolved through the

video-centered collaborative reflection process

and then addressed individually by each educator

as needed with the support of peers

Should engage science educators in transformative

learning experiences that confront deeply held

beliefs, knowledge, and habits of practice

Deeply held beliefs, knowledge, and habits of

practice are confronted with collaborative support

of peers, students, professors, and other resources

Should be integrated and coordinated with other

initiatives in schools and embedded in

curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices

Development is integrated into a graduate

education program and helps teachers to focus on

their own curriculum, instruction, and assessment

practices

Should maintain a sustained focus over time,

providing opportunity for continuous

improvement

Developmental engagement is sustained over an

entire academic year and provides multiple levels

of support for continuous improvement

Should actively involve teachers in observing,

analyzing, and applying feedback to teaching

practices

Video engages teachers in collaboratively and

individually observing, analyzing, and

reflectively applying feedback to teaching

practices

Should concentrate on specific issues of science

content and pedagogy that are derived from

research and exemplary practice. Should connect

issues of instruction and student learning of

knowledge and skills to the actual context of

classrooms

Video focuses attention on science content and

pedagogy in relation to research and exemplary

practice on an individual basis to then connect

instruction and student learning in the actual

context of their own classrooms

Should promote collaboration among teachers in

the same school, grade, or subject

Reflective collaboration among peers with common

purpose is a key element in the process


123

Conclusions

Over the past 5 years, our work with teachers has led us to conclude that engaging

in the expanded action research process can profoundly transform a teacher’s

practice. The intersection of 2 key features of our model emerges as catalysts for

change: the use of video and the act of collaborative reflection.

Video is crucial at each stage in the process. ‘‘Because the video study group

allows participants to work on real situations of this kind in a reflective fashion, it

constitutes the most fully worked out expression of a pedagogy of knowledge’’

(Tochon 1999, p. 21). Video has recently been utilized to provide opportunities for

teachers to work collaboratively to reflect upon classroom events (Borko et al. 2008;

Bryan and Recesso 2006; Sherin and van Es 2009). We found that an unedited video

of teaching constitutes the most complete conveyance of a teacher’s classroom

performance available and provides opportunities for a teacher and others to view

and reflect upon the whole picture of practice, including instructional techniques,

levels of student engagement, and student achievement of learning objectives.

Video, therefore, serves as an object of reflection, a touchstone for insight, and a

reference point for witnessing development.

We also identified how collaborative reflection plays an instrumental role in

transforming practice through our action research model. This finding adds to the

literature on the role of reflection within the action research process. Feldman and

Capobianco (2002) found action research serves as a catalyst for prospective science

teachers to engage in reflective practice. The benefits of collaborative reflection

within action research have also been noted (Carr and Kemmis 1986). The

conversations that occur within the collaborative reflection groups are instrumental

in arriving at new understandings (Feldman 1999). Furthermore, the conversations

can be critical inquiry processes within the peer groups when used to make

decisions about goals and actions (Feldman and Minstrell 2000). Through the case

studies, we found as peers watch each other’s teaching on video, they begin to

question one another’s pedagogical approaches, suggest alternative modes of

instruction, and help one another to identify what is working and what is not. As a

result of the viewing process, teachers form goals for action research that are

concretely based upon practices enacted in their own classrooms. As teachers

reconsider their daily practices, they begin to change them and try new techniques.

By vicariously experiencing a teacher’s practices on video, peers can provide

feedback and support for ongoing experimentation. Video-centered collaborative

reflection leads teachers to question how they view their own students’ learning

styles and to challenge one another to rethink how they view teaching and learning

in general.

When used jointly in a single process, video and collaborative reflection allow

teachers to honestly inquire into their own daily classroom practices and make their

own development as practitioners their focus for research. Science teachers who are

wholeheartedly engaged in a process of inquiry into their own practice will, in turn,

work to get their students engaged in processes of inquiry in class. We have

witnessed this transformation take place many times in our research and offer the

cases presented in this paper as evidence. Inquiry and reflection can be contagious.


123

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New

York: Oxford University Press.

Association for Science Teacher Education. (2004). ASTE position statement science teacher preparationand career-long development. Retrieved November 30, 2009, from http://theaste.org/aboutus/

AETSPosnStatemt1.htm.

Borko, H., Jacobs, J., Eiteljorg, E., & Pittman, M. E. (2008). Video as a tool for fostering productive

discussions in mathematics professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24,

417–436.

Bryan, L., & Recesso, A. (2006). Promoting reflection among science student teachers using a web-based

video analysis tool. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 23, 31–39.

Capobianco, B. M. (2007). A self-study of the role of technology in promoting reflection and inquiry-

based science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 271–296.

Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge, and action research. Lewes,

UK: Falmer.

Cranton, P. (2005). Understanding and promoting transformative learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Diez, M., & Blackwell, P. (1999). Achieving the new vision of master’s education for teachers.

Washington, DC: National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education.

Feldman, A. (1999). The role of conversation in collaborative action research. Educational ActionResearch, 7, 125–144.

Feldman, A., & Capobianco, B. M. (2002). Action research in science education. ERIC Digest:

Clearinghouse for science, mathematics, and environmental education. Retrieved July, 5, 2010, from

http://www.ericdigests.org/2003-1/action.htm.

Feldman, A., & Minstrell, J. (2000). Action Research as a research methodology for the study of the

teaching and learning of science. In E. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design inmathematics and science education (pp. 429–456). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Fradd, S., & Lee, O. (1999). Teachers’ roles in promoting science inquiry with students from diverse

language backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 28, 14–20.

Fullan, M. G. (1992). Successful school improvement. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Gerring, J. (2005). Case study research. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations, 1, 23–153.

McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2006). All you need to know about action research. London: Sage

Publications.

Mertler, C. (2006). Action research: Teachers as researchers in the classroom. London: Sage

Publications.

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide forteaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Science Teachers Association. (2006a). Position on scientific inquiry. Retrieved November 28,

2009, from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/inquiry.aspx.

National Science Teachers Association. (2006b). Position on professional development in scienceeducation. Retrieved November 28, 2009, from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/profdev.aspx.

Sherin, M., & van Es, E. (2009). Effects of video club participation on teachers’ professional vision.

Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 20–37.

Stake, R. (1995). The art of case research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Tabachnick, B., & Zeichner, K. (1999). Idea and action: Action research and the development of

conceptual change teaching of science. Science Education, 83, 309–322.

Tinsley, R., & Lebak, K. (2009). Expanding the zone of reflective capacity: Taking separate journeys

together. Networks, 11. Retrieved May 28, 2010, from http://journals.library.wisc.edu/index.php/

networks/article/view/190.

Tochon, F. (1999). Video study groups for education, professional development, and change. Madison,

WI: Atwood.


123

http://theaste.org/aboutus/AETSPosnStatemt1.htm

http://theaste.org/aboutus/AETSPosnStatemt1.htm

http://www.ericdigests.org/2003-1/action.htm

http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/inquiry.aspx

http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/profdev.aspx

http://journals.library.wisc.edu/index.php/networks/article/view/190

http://journals.library.wisc.edu/index.php/networks/article/view/190

can inquiry and reflection be contagious? science teachers, students, and action research

Documents