changing practice by enabling teachers to change: reflections from six years of cooperative...

Changing Practice by Enabling Teachers to Change:

Reflections from Six Years of Cooperative Curriculum

Development by Participatory Action Research (PAR)

within Chemical Education

Content

• PAR in chemical education• Data about the teachers’ PD• Framing the development by Grundy’s model

Participatory Action Research (PAR)in Chemical Education

Grundy‘s three modes of AR

(nach Grundy, in Kemmis/McTaggert Act. Res. Planner 1988; Eilks & Ralle ChemKon 2003)

PAR in chemical education: The frame

• Establishing of an Action Research group in August 2000 • The research team in the beginning:

– 1 researcher – 8 teachers from middle and grammar schools

• Meetings every 4 weeks for one afternoon (3-4 hrs)• Growth of the group until now up to 15 teachers

Our research

model

Roles in the team

Projects and intentions

• „New ways towards the particulate nature of matter“ • „Alternative methods in science teaching“ • “Conceptions for a socio-critical and problem-oriented

approach to chemistry teaching”• …

Data on the teachers view:Minutes, questionnaires and group discussions

Data on the teachers view:Minutes, questionnaires, group discussions

Minutestaken from every meeting, monitoring experiences, new ideas, interests, etc.



Focussed questionnairesmonitoring teachers view on

applied new modules




applied new modules

Open questionnairesmonitoring teachers view on

issues, objectives andtheir role




applied new modules

Open questionnairesmonitoring teachers view on


Group discussionsmonitoring teachers view on


Data on the teachers reflection about their role and professional development

• Open questionnaires each summer• Group discussions following the questionnaire (60 min.),

audio taped and transcribed • Both data are analysed qualitatively• Data collection from June 2001 and to June 2005 analysed

Collection and evaluation



• 1. How do the teachers consider the developed teaching strategies and materials in regards to feasibility, suitability to practical needs, suitability to students’ learning capabilities and authenticity? How do the teachers consider the strategies and materials compared with materials conventionally presented in teachers' journals or on in-service training courses? What had been their experiences in use?

• 2. How do the teachers consider this kind of co-operative curriculum development concerning the relationship of research and practice, researchers and practitioners, in-service training, practice development and curriculum development?

• 3. (from the 2nd year) Do the teachers feel a change in their role/behaviour during their participation within the team? Is there a change in the relationship between researchers and practitioners?

Questions


Results and discussion

Teachers’ role within the project

Applying pre-structured teaching modules as basis for evaluation

Helping to develop teaching modules thatfit the needs and restrictions of practice

Being an active part in all steps of the development of new teaching modules

Change in the first year

Change in year 2/3

Expectationin the

beginning

Initiating changes, working self-standing within the group

Role now

Teachers’ view: Teachers’ role within the project

” ... from a teacher, who wanted to be in-service trained, towards a colleague and convinced promoter of the

new concept.”

or

” ... from a receiver within a group to an activist”.

Teachers feel themselves to “become more aware about the needs of change but also to become more open for alternative teaching.”

Teachers’ view: Benefits for practice

” ... the work [within the project] prevents to become crusted with

not reflected views from practice over the years.”

”... a help against blinkered attitude to one's own work".

or

“... becoming more reflective and critical concerning one's own previous practice".

Teachers’ view: Benefits for practice

• Contact to domain specific educational research outcomes in refined form

• From their own experiences teachers look on publications in teachers journals now “with another view”.

• Long term training in applying new teaching methods • Exchange and shared reflection about ones own practice

within the group• The teachers pointed out to have learned about "own

[teachers’] misconceptions about students' learning".

Teachers’ view: Change and concepts

Careful retention against new didacticalstructures and methods

Growth of acceptance for the need of changeFamiliarisation with the new concepts

Ownership of the commonly developed (“own”) concepts

Change in the first year

Change in year 2/3

Considerationin the

beginning

Promoting and implementing the ideas, e.g.,school book writing, syllabus commission

Role now

Teachers’ view: Modules and materials

” ... effective in-service training is only possible if it is connected with experiences

in applying new approaches".

or

”A conviction to change one's own practice only will take place among teachers if based

on one's own experiences".

(group discussion, after 2 years)

Teachers’ view:On the Action Research approach

Using Participatory Action Research is seen as a chance to

"connect input from the teachers with input from domain-specific educational research".

But it also is seen of potential to bring

"practical experiences to the researcher".

Framing teachers’ PD by a re-interpretation of

Grundy’ three modes of Action Research

Grundy‘s three modes of AR

(nach Grundy, in Kemmis/McTaggert Act. Res. Planner 1988; Eilks & Ralle ChemKon 2003)

A CPD model for AR

(Eilks & Markic under review)

Thank you.

changing practice by enabling teachers to change: reflections from six years of cooperative...

Documents

teachers reflection

teachers pd

role slide

group discussions minutes

role group discussions

focussed questionnaires

team slide

chemical education slide