Participatory Action Research in University Chemistry Teacher Training

  • Yannik Tolsdorf
  • Silvija Markic Ludiwgsburg University of Education

Abstract

The Participatory Action Research (PAR) model developed by Eilks and Ralle is very well known in science education. Over the years, many teaching and learning materials have been developed and implemented in German secondary schools using this method. The success of the model encouraged us to adapt it to the university level in order to develop university chemistry education courses. However, to do this, we encountered and conquered some challenges. The present paper is based on an advanced model of Participatory Action Research for developing university chemistry teacher training. For an advanced model, the focus is strongly on the extended development team, which contains people who were not part of the original team. The role of the students also changes. The ideas we used to further develop the model and implement it in practice will be described and discussed below.

References

Aguirre, J., & Speer, N. M. (2000). Examining the relationship between beliefs and goals in teacher practice. Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 18(3), 327–356.

Altrichter, H., Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2002). The concept of action research. The Learning Organization, 9(3), 125–131.

Baumert, J., & Kunter, M. (2006). Stichwort: Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrer Lehrkräften [Keyword: Professional competence of teachers]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 9(4), 469–520.

Bencze, T., & Hodson, D. (1999). Changing practice by changing practice: Toward more authentic science and science curriculum development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(5), 521–539.

Brante, G. (2009). Multitasking and synchronous work: complexities in teacher work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(3), 430–436. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0742051X08001704?via%3Dihub

Burmeister, M., & Eilks, I. (2013). Using participatory action research to develop a course module on education for sustainable development in pre-service chemistry teacher education. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 3(1), 59–78.

Eilks, I., & Ralle, B. (2002). Participatory action research. In B. Ralle & I. Eilks (Eds.), Research in chemical education – What does it mean? Proceedings of the 16th symposium on chemical education at the University of Dortmund, 22-24 May 2002 (pp. 87–98). Aachen: Shaker.

Eilks, I., & Markic, S. (2011). Effects of a long-term Participatory Action Research project on science teachers´ professional development. Eurasia journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 7(3), 149–160.
Retrieved from http://www.ejmste.com/Effects-of-a-Long-Term-nParticipatory-Action-Research-nProject-on-Science-Teachers-nProfessional-Development,75196,0,2.html

Eilks, I., Markic, S., & Witteck, T. (2010). Collaborative innovation of the science classroom by Participatory Action Research – Theory and practice in a project of implementing cooperative learning methods in chemistry education. In M. Valencic Zuljan & J. Vogrinc (Eds.), Facilitating effective students learning trough teacher research and innovation (pp. 77–101). Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana.

Eilks, I., Parchmann, I., Gräsel, C., & Ralle, B. (2004). Changing teacher’ attitudes and professional skills by involving teachers into projects of curriculum innovation in Germany. In B. Ralle & I. Eilks (Eds.), Quality in practice-oriented research in science education. Proceedings of the 17th symposium on chemical education held at the University of Dortmund, 3-5 June 2004 (pp. 87–98). Aachen: Shaker.

Elliot, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Keynes, UK: Open University Press.

Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) (Ed.) (2009). Bachelor-Studierende: Erfahrungen in Studium und Lehre: Eine Zwischenbilanz [Bachelor students: experience about study and teaching: interim balance]. Berlin: Federal Ministry of Education and Research. Retrieved from https://www.bmbf.de/pub/Bachelor_Studierende_Zwischenbilanz_2010.pdf

Feldman, A. (1996). Enhancing the practice of physics teachers: Mechanisms for the generation and sharing of knowledge and understanding in collaborative action research. Journal of Research in science Teaching, 33(5), 513–540.

Fussangel, K. (2008). Subjektive Theorien von Lehrkräften zur Kooperation [Subjective theories of teachers about cooperation]. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Retrieved from http://elpub.bib.uni-wuppertal.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/Derivate-1129/dg0802.pdf

Heritage, M., Kim, J., Vendlinski, T., & Herman, J. (2009). From evidence to action: A seamless process in formative assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(3), 24–31.

Herman, J., Osmundson, E., Dai, Y., Ringstaff, C., & Timms, M. (2015). Investigating the dynamics of formative assessment: Relationships between teacher knowledge, assessment practice and learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22(3), 1–24.

Holter, I. M., & Schwartz-Barcott, D. (1993). Action research: What is it? How has it been used and how can it be used in nursing? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18(2), 298–304.

Huberman, M. (1993). Linking the practitioner and researcher communities for school improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 4(1), 1–16.

Jäger, R. S. (2006). Der Diagnostische Prozess. In F. Petermann & M. Eid (Eds.), Handbuch der psychologischen Diagnostik [Handbook of psychological diagnosis] (pp. 89–96). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner (3rd ed.). Geelong: Deakin University Press.

Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2014). The Action research planner: Doing critical participatory action research. Singapore: Springer.

Klug, J., Bruder, S., Kelave, A., Spiel, C., & Schmitz, B. (2013). Diagnostic competence of teachers: A Process model that accounts diagnosing learning behaviour tested by means of a case scenario. Teaching and Teacher Education, 30, 38–46. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0742051X12001503

(KVFF) - Konferenz der Vorsitzenden Fachdidaktischer Fachgesellschaften (Eds.) (1998). Fachdidaktik in Forschung und Lehre [Education in research and teaching]. Kiel: IPN.

Krause, M., & Eilks, I. (2015). Lernen über digitale Medien in der Chemielehrerausbildung – ein Projekt Partizipativer Aktionsforschung [Chemistry student teachers learn about digital media – a project participatory action research]. CHEMKON, 22(4), 173–178.

Loughran, J., Berry, A., & Mulhall, P. (2006). Professional learning: understanding and developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Rotterdam: Sense.

Mansour, N. (2009). Science teachers´ beliefs and practices: Issues, implications and research agenda. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(1), 25–48.

Markic, S., & Baginski, K. (2014). Aufgaben leichter verstehen: Lese- und Verständnishilfen zur Bearbeitung von Aufgaben [Easier to unterstand tasks: helps to reading and understanding for working of tasks]. Unterricht Chemie, 142(25), 14–17.

Markic, S., & Eilks, I. (2006). Cooperative and context-based learning on electrochemical cells in lower secondary science lessons - A project of participatory action research. Science Education International, 17(4), 253–273.

Markic, S., Broggy, J., & Childs, P. (2013). How to deal with linguistic issues in the chemistry classroom. In I. Eilks & A. Hofstein (Eds.), Teaching chemistry - A studybook (pp. 127–152). Rotterdam: Sense.

Masters, J. (1995). The History of Action Research. In I. Hughes (Ed.), Action research electronic reader. Sydney: The University of Sydney. Retrieved from http://www.aral.com.au/arow/rmasters.html

McIntyre, D. (2005). Bringing the gap between research and practice. Cambridge Journal Education, 35(3), 357–382.

McKernan, J. (1991). Curriculum action research. A handbook of methods and resources for the reflective
practitioner. London, UK: Kogan.

Reinhardt, S. (2009). Gelingende Lehrerbildung – Professionstheorie und Fachdidaktik, Erfahrungen und Konsequenzen [Successful teacher training – professional theory and education, experiences and consequences]. Journal of Social Science Education, 8(2), 23–31.

Schüssler, R., Keuffer, J., Grünnewig, K., & Scharlau, I. (2012). Praxis nach Rezept? Subjektiven Theorien von Lehramtsstudierenden zu Praxisbezug und Professionalität [Recipe for practice? subjective theories from student teachers to practice and professionalism]. Schulpädagogik heute, 3(5), 141–161.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–21.

Tolsdorf, Y., & Markic, S. (2016). Dealing language in science classroom – Diagnosing student’ linguistic skills. In S. Markic & S. Abels (Eds.), Science Education towards Inclusion (pp. 23–42). New York, NY: Nova.

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 and Technological Education, 25(2), 19–175.
Published
2018-07-02
How to Cite
TOLSDORF, Yannik; MARKIC, Silvija. Participatory Action Research in University Chemistry Teacher Training. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, [S.l.], p. 1-20, july 2018. ISSN 2232-2647. Available at: <https://ojs.cepsj.si/index.php/cepsj/article/view/269>. Date accessed: 19 july 2018. doi: https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.269.