Transcript

45

Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 29:45–58, 2008Copyright © National Association of Early Childhood Teacher EducatorsISSN: 1090-1027 print / 1745-5642 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10901020701878669

UJEC1090-10271745-5642Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, Vol. 29, No. 1, February 2008: pp. 1–29Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education

Preservice Teachers Conducting Action Research in Early Education Centers

Preservice Teachers Conducting Action ResearchR. A. Moore and J. L. Gilliard RITA A. MOORE1 AND JENNIFER L. GILLIARD2

1Willamette University School of Education, Salem, Oregon, USA2The University of Montana–Western, Dillon, Montana, USA

The purpose of this study was to investigate the use of action research by ten preser-vice teachers earning their associate’s degree in early childhood education from asmall university in the West. Their goal was to assess the impact of their teaching onstudent learning with children birth to 8 years of age. This study represents the use ofundergraduate action research in early childhood at the associate degree level, andalso contributes to the early childhood teacher education knowledge base in the use ofthe action research method in early learning centers as a means of professional develop-ment as well as a tool to guide daily instruction, problem solving, and decision making.

Using a variety of informal assessment procedures, the preservice teachers stud-ied the effects of specific learning strategies or activities, first upon the developmentand learning of the young children they taught, and then upon the results from theassessments in order to guide further instruction.

Introduction

Action research in teacher education is on the rise with many undergraduate and graduateprograms providing preparation for candidates in action research methods and/or citingaction research as graduation requirements (Levine, 2002); however, action research inearly childhood education remains virtually unexplored although the method is simple andeasily implemented. The purpose of this study was to investigate the use of action researchby ten preservice teachers earning their associate’s degree in early childhood educationfrom a small university in the West. Their goal was to assess the impact of their teachingon student learning with children birth to 8 years of age. This study is unique in two ways:First, it represents the use of undergraduate action research in early childhood at the asso-ciate degree level, and second, it contributes to the early childhood teacher educationknowledge base in regard to the use of the action research method in early learning centersas a means of professional development as well as a tool to guide daily instruction, prob-lem solving, and decision making.

Action research presents a simple, reliable research process that may be used to focusteaching questions as well as organize and interpret the multiple classroom data sourcesthat reflect student learning (Calhoun, 2002; Glanz, 2003; Moore, 2004). The authors ofthis study approach action research as a framework and method for studying instructionaldecision making. We believe that conducting action research in early childhood class-rooms presents an especially appropriate method of daily inquiry and problem solving inclassrooms uniquely rich in differentiated learning, ages, developmental stages, as well as

Received 14 May 2007; accepted 31 July 2007.Address correspondence to Rita A. Moore, 900 State St., Salem, OR 97301. E-mail: rmoore@

willamette.edu

46 R. A. Moore and J. L. Gilliard

physical, social, and verbal abilities. In addition, we believe the work of early learningteachers conducting action research has potential for contributing to the knowledge baseinforming the curriculum for early childhood education programs at the undergraduateand graduate level.

Rationale and Theoretical Framework

Key to the accessibility of action research is assisting teachers in understanding thatthrough carefully documented learning outcomes, their instructional decision making isexamined and validated through systematic, thoughtful and reflective classroom researchmethods (Arhar, Holly, & Kasten, 2001; Moore, 2004). Action research encouragesteachers to look at their teaching actions in response to children’s learning and reflect ontheir own experiences, share those experiences with others in the field, and make changesin their classroom based on the careful documentation of student learning (Arhar et al.,2000; Moore, 2004; 2007). The depth and breadth of a preservice teacher’s knowledge,skills, and dispositions are measured by their impact on the students they teach (Lefever-Davis, 2002; National Commission on Teaching, 1996).

Action research is a powerful form of assessment in which instructional decisions aremade by examining the events and outcomes of the classroom (Arhar et al., 2001; Leland& Kasten, 2002). It has been used in educational research since the early 1960s; however,the use of action research as a tool for studying teaching and learning in early childhoodprograms is relatively new to the literature. We include the following two examples.

One study was conducted by teachers and practitioners in early learning centers inNew Zealand to explore the implementation of Te Whariki, the national early childhoodcurriculum. The intent of the study was to test the framework for assessment and evalua-tion using teaching tools associated with “Learning and Teaching Stories” (Carr, May, &Podmore, 2000). Outcomes of the study expanded on the idea that early childhood pro-grams should be grounded in quality and that quality should be based on the child’s per-spective and interests.

In another study, Hatch, Greer, and Bailey (2006) explored the action researchprojects of two early childhood interns enrolled in a 5th-year master’s degree programworking in urban schools. The emphasis of this project was on the use of action researchmethod as a tool for teachers to use in problem solving for the daily challenges and issuesof the classroom rather than utilizing action research to add to the knowledge base inteacher education found in the work of others such as Glanz (2003), Cochran-Smith andLytle (1993), and Meyers and Rust (2003). The interns in the study explored opportuni-ties to better implement literacy and family literacy in a kindergarten and second-gradeclassroom.

It is documented that early childhood educators may use ineffective strategies associ-ated with traditional teaching rituals and practices including daily calendar, rote exercisessuch as learning a letter a week, and other isolating skill-related activities that are teachercentered, as opposed to student centered (Borgia & Schuler, 1996). The use of actionresearch to explore interactive learning opportunities that are more developmentallyappropriate may be linked to the theory of social constructivism. For example, the basicpremise of social constructivism is that knowledge is socially constructed in communitiesof practice which provide the context for learning, and that knowledge is the tool thatguides teaching. Social constructivism emphasizes education for social transformation andreflects human development theory within a sociocultural context (Vygotsky, 1978).Hence, individuals construct knowledge by interacting with the environment, and in the

Preservice Teachers Conducting Action Research 47

process both the individual and the environment are changed (Vygotsky). Action researchhas the potential to highlight not only what is learned, but how learning environments andpractices effect and change learning outcomes (Glanz, 2003).

Defined within the realm of reflective teaching (Cochran-Smith, & Lytle, 1993;Hubbard & Power, 1999; Moore, 2007), action research today is recognized as an impor-tant tool in elementary and secondary teacher preparation programs but there is little in theliterature about action research in early childhood education programs. The impact of pre-service teaching on student learning represents a powerful means through which teacherpreparation programs may assess their effectiveness in preparing future teachers (Levine,2002; Shoyer & Yahnke, 2001) for any educational setting (Borgia & Schuler, 1996),including those found in early learning centers.

Overview of the Study

The purpose of this study was to investigate the use of action research by 10 preserviceteachers pursuing their associate’s degree in Early Childhood Education from a smalluniversity in rural Montana. Their task was to assess the impact of their teaching on studentlearning with children birth to 8 years of age using data from the action research projectsconducted during a 16-week semester. The action research projects were conducted by thepreservice teachers as a requirement for an early childhood professionalism class takenconcurrently with the curriculum class. The study was designed to help the early childhoodpreservice teachers better understand how assessment informs instruction through the use ofaction research method as a professional development tool.

Each preservice teacher conducted an action research project in a different earlychildhood classroom. This was the first time the preservice teachers had been exposed toaction research method and the first time that the authors had studied action research withassociate degree level candidates. Steps for orienting the preservice teachers werethoughtfully and carefully presented by their instructor, Jennifer, using a variety of casescenarios and projects conducted by elementary and secondary education majors.

Developing the Preservice Teachers’ Action Research Projects

To gather data for their projects, the preservice teachers regularly assessed anddocumented student learning as a part of teaching a 6-week curriculum project based onthe interests and development of the young children at their field sites. The process ofdeveloping an action research plan to study curriculum projects was new to them.

Steps in the process. Several steps led to the development of the preservice teachers’action research projects. First, the preservice teachers received direct instruction in thesteps of action research beginning with writing research questions. They then wrote two orthree research questions to focus specific areas of child learning or development during acurriculum project they would later teach.

Second, the preservice teachers created a data gathering schedule and constructed alist of at least two potential data sources for each research question. These included: childinterviews; KWL charts (charts indicating what the children know, what they want toknow, and what they learned) (Vacca & Vacca, 2004); curriculum webs; running records;anecdotal records; behavior charts; photographs; reflections on implemented learningplans; reflective journals; and project activities linked to multiple forms of expression,such as art, dramatic play, investigations, and storytelling. After each teaching day, the

48 R. A. Moore and J. L. Gilliard

preservice teachers were required to write in a reflective journal describing what theywere observing, learning, and questioning about teaching and learning. The intent of thiswriting was to keep the research focused on the relationship between teaching and learning.Linking teaching to learning goals was continually examined in the written reflections. Torecord student responses or behaviors during the classroom day, anecdotal records weretaken by the preservice teachers and later examined through their reflective journals.

Third, the preservice teachers were instructed in basic color data coding strategies(Bogdan & Biklen, 1992). Each question is designated a color and as data responses areread, those that are relevant to a research question are highlighted in the question’s desig-nated color. For example, a reflective journal response might be highlighted in greenbecause it informed one of the questions.

Following the training, each preservice teacher began to conduct an action researchproject to assess the impact of a specific approach, curriculum, or teaching strategy on thedevelopment of the children in their field classrooms. Each implemented a curriculumproject for 6 weeks under the supervision of the university instructor who taught the earlychildhood curriculum class and visited their field classrooms. For example, one preserviceteacher implemented a project on volcanoes in an after-school program serving 5-to-8 yearolds. The learning goals of the volcano project were to answer the children’s questions aboutvolcanoes while building literacy, problem solving, and social skills. The children learnedabout volcanoes through group and individual projects, journaling, reading, hands-onscience activities, and art projects. Other assessment checkpoints such as a KWL chartserved as data sources for the research questions as well. See Table 1 for a complete list ofprojects and age-level environments.

Approximately 6 weeks into their research projects, the preservice teachers begancolor coding student learning outcomes, documenting various assessment activities totheir research questions which were written during the 1st week of instruction. In addition,they read their reflective journals daily, coding their written reflections to their actionresearch questions. They were encouraged to make changes in their teaching based onwhat they were learning from the data.

Following the completion of their action research project, the preservice teachers rereadtheir coded data sources, scrutinizing for accuracy and noting the instructional changes theymade as a result of consistent coding and reflection. To verify their coding accuracy, thepreservice teachers reviewed their coded data with a small group of their classmates upon

Table 1Action Research Topics and Age Levels Studied by the Preservice Teacher

Topic Age levels Teacher

Firefighters, police, and ambulances 2–7 years MaeveRocks (outdoor interests) 12–24 months JasmineBabies and bears 6–24 months HannahOrganized play areas 1–3 years LorieBugs 2–3 years CathySensory activities with infants 6–24 months TessaTrees 3–5 years DebAfter-school learning programs 5–9 years SallyEnvironmental influences on behavior 6–36 months JoanCars 2–8 years Helen

Preservice Teachers Conducting Action Research 49

completion of teaching the curriculum project as well as with both investigators of the study.In addition, they received input on their continuous coding and analysis from the projectinvestigators through a structured phone interview midway through the project, regular e-mail correspondence with instructors and classmates, and in-class discussions.

The preservice teachers then summarized their findings under each question and usedthose findings to reflect on the implications of their research on their own teaching andlearning in a final written report. Table 2 is an abbreviated example. Near the end of theearly childhood curriculum and professionalism classes, they presented the results of theirprojects to the faculty, project investigators, and the preservice teachers enrolled in theearly childhood classes.

Overview of the Study and Method

The purpose of this qualitative study was to investigate the use of action research by pre-service teachers in early learning field settings for infants, toddlers, preschool-age chil-dren as well as an after-school group of 5-to-8 year olds. The preservice teachers assessedthe environment and the interactions between and among the children using actionresearch method. They planned instruction and used various assessment strategies to cre-atively assess the impact of their instruction on the learning of young children, using theresults to inform their instruction.

Research Questions and Data Sources

The research questions were:

1. In what ways did assessment and data analysis inform the instructional practices of thepreservice teachers?

2. What did the preservice teachers learn as a result of conducting their action researchprojects?

The Participants and Setting

Participants. The participants of the study were 10 preservice teachers in their finalsemester of early childhood classes for an associate’s degree in Early ChildhoodEducation from a small state University in Montana. The preservice teachers were enrolled intwo concurrent early childhood courses: an early childhood curriculum class for whichcurriculum projects were designed and implemented using the project approach (Jones &Nimmo, 1994) and an early childhood professionalism class for which action research

Table 2Behaviors Observed With and Without Toddler Learning Stations

Behavior observed

Number of times observed (no stations)

Number of times observed (stations)

Number of times not observed

Pulling 3 0 2Hitting 8 1 2Taking toys 4 1 2Screaming 10 1 5

50 R. A. Moore and J. L. Gilliard

projects were conducted to assess and guide the projects they were implementing as a fieldrequirement for their early childhood curriculum class.

The sample was comprised of 10 Caucasian females ranging in age from 20 to 46 livingin rural Montana. Nine of the preservice teachers were already employed as teacherassistants or lead teachers in early childhood programs and their employment sites wereutilized as field sites for the early childhood education classes. One preservice teacher wasnot employed at an early learning program and volunteered approximately 6 hours a weekat a university preschool program.

Setting. The settings for the study were field sites located at early learning centers servinginfants, toddlers, and preschool-age children in rural Montana. Each preservice teacherconducted an action research project in a different early childhood classroom. Sixprograms served as field sites and curriculum and action research projects were conductedin 10 different classrooms. Six of the classrooms were infant and toddler classrooms, 3 werepreschool classrooms, and 1 was comprised of children age 5 to 8 in an after-schoolprogram.

As stated previously, one of the investigators, Jennifer, taught the early childhoodprofessionalism class. She also collaborated with the instructor of the curriculum class byregularly visiting the class to discuss implementation of their combined curriculum andaction research projects. Rita, the other investigator, visited Jennifer’s early childhoodprofessionalism class to assist students with the process of data coding and analysis and,having conducted numerous action research projects with elementary and secondarypreservice and practicing teachers, served as a mentor to the preservice teachers.

Research Questions

The research questions were: 1) In what ways did assessment and data analysis inform theinstructional practices of the preservice teachers, and 2) what did the preservice teacherslearn as a result of conducting their action research projects? Data were collected by theinvestigators at the end of the 16-week semester. Data sources for question 1 included: 1)the reflective journals in which the preservice teachers wrote daily responses to what theywere learning about assessment and instruction, 2) the results and implications sections ofthe final action research reports, and 3) structured phone interviews with the preserviceteachers during their practica conducted by Rita and Jennifer midway through the study.

Procedures

After 3 weeks of instruction on the project approach to curriculum development, the 10preservice teachers began implementation of their curriculum projects in their fieldclassrooms. Prior to teaching the curriculum project, the preservice teachers developed anaction research plan to determine what they wished to assess during the project and theassessment tools and processes they would use.

Near the end of the professionalism course, the preservice teachers wrote a finalreport which included their questions, data sources for each question, results of theirstudy, particularly how they used assessment to consistently evaluate and inform theirinstruction, and the implications of the study to their own teaching and learning. Copies ofthese reports as well as their reflective journals were collected during the 16th week of thesemester. Data from the preservice teachers’ action research projects served as data for thestudy.

Preservice Teachers Conducting Action Research 51

Their professor for the professionalism class, Jennifer, regularly visited with studentsby e-mail, phone, and in class to discuss their action research projects. Midway throughthe semester, Jennifer and Rita interviewed each of the preservice teachers by phone toassess the progress of their action research projects.

Data Acquisition and Analysis

Data from the study were compiled from the action research projects of the 10 preserviceteachers. At the close of the semester, the authors sorted the data by color coding relevantresponses to our research questions. We color coded the responses from the preserviceteachers’ reflective journals, the findings and implications from their action researchproject reports, and responses to the structured telephone interview to the questionsindividually and cross checked our findings. We then reread the data a second timetogether, to develop themes and categories within each question. To arrive at these deci-sions, we noted whether at least 8 responses from three data sources alluded to the generalconcept of the category (Guba & Lincoln, 1985; 2005).

Following standard qualitative analysis procedures, we again reread the data, markingcategorization changes as needed. After some discussion, minimal adjustments were madeinvolving interpretation of responses. The study was validated through triangulation ofdata in which at least three data sources cross checked the findings for each question.To be considered significant to the question, a similar response from each data source hadto be sorted to a question at least five times (Guba & Lincoln, 1985; 2005).

Results of the Study

The results of the study are grouped below according to the research questions. They areexamined through themes and subcategories to the themes that consistently emerged undereach question with examples from the research projects and data sources of the preserviceteachers: Joan, Tessa, Helen, Jasmine, Deb, Sally, Maeve, Lorie, Cathy, and Hannah.

Question 1. In what ways did Assessment and Data Analysis Informthe Instructional Practices of the Preservice Teachers?

Two themes from the data focused this question: a) continuous assessment informsinstruction, and b) strategies for motivating learning and curiosity. The data sourcesinforming this question were the findings and implications sections of the final actionresearch reports, the anecdotal records, photographs taken during school activities, and thereflective journals of the preservice teachers.

Continuous Assessment Informs Instruction

Children in the early learning centers showed definite preferences for some activities overothers. For example, Tessa elaborated in her reflective journal about M. in the infant/toddler center who showed aversions to food textures as well as other textures such as thebare floor against her legs, while the other children did not. The activity that she found allof the children most readily engaged in was exploration of food textures so she emphasizedthat in her curriculum project and found the children learned a great deal of informationthrough taste. She explained in her final action research report, “The pudding activitieswere the textures that the children enjoyed the most. The various collage materials

52 R. A. Moore and J. L. Gilliard

appeared less engaging than any of the other activities as the children spent less time onthese than on other activities.”

Second to the food exploration was exploration of textures in which all the children,with the exception of M., appeared to enjoy and learn from. Interacting with the varioustextures produced different responses from each of the children and introduced spontaneouslessons in sharing into the curriculum. It also allowed Tessa to observe and document reac-tions from M. whose aversions to textures, underscored by her lack of speech development,lead Tessa to write, “This finding from my research could benefit M. by leading to earlyinterventions that may assist in her development.” Such aversions to textures coupled withlatent speech development may suggest developmental delays (Bakley, 2001).

Differentiating Instruction. As education professors, the authors know from firsthandexperience that one of the most difficult concepts to teach is differentiated instruction. Forearly childhood educators, this is especially important given the broad range of ages anddevelopment the children in their classrooms may have. In Lorie’s project on organizedoutdoor play areas, she taught seven children ranging from ages 1 to 3 years. She wantedto find out how the outside play areas affected the children’s interest and engagement, aswell as how the various curriculum associated with the play areas fostered their develop-ment. Her project involved taking the indoor stations to the outdoors. Her anecdotalrecords, reflective journal, and photos demonstrate that one of the children spent a greatdeal of time in the sensory station. Lorie highlighted in her reflective journal, “O. loves thesensory table and it keeps him from going from child to child. He played in the rice andbeans for an hour today… it seemed to calm him down.” Her coded data in her journal andthe observation checklist she used to track O.’s behavior confirmed the effectiveness ofthis sensory strategy.

Joan, also, noted the effects of the various indoor learning environments, with orwithout learning stations, on the reactions and interactions of the children. She found thatthe interests of the children were encouraged through the various stations which, in turn,helped her plan and differentiate activities for lessons associated with each station.

Maeve taught in a home child care center for children between the ages of 2 and 7years. Her curriculum project was about firefighters, police, and ambulance technicians.She chose this topic because the children with whom she worked had expressed fear ofpolice officers and firemen. One theme emerging from her data was that “all children learndifferently, some of the children were not afraid of the fire fighter when he put on his suitand others were still afraid.” Based on her color coded anecdotal record entries Maeveidentified two categories to which she attributed the children’s reaction: age differenceand experiences.

Strategies for Motivating Curiosity and Learning

“They would seek out more information than what I even wanted them to learn” (Helen).The preservice teachers used numerous strategies for motivating curiosity and learning.

The two most commonly documented were the use of questioning strategies and teachingthrough the use of learning stations. In addition, organization and curriculum deliverymethods emerged as contributors to motivation.

Questioning Strategies. As might be expected, questioning was a commonly used methodof instruction by the teachers but the data from the implications to teaching and learningsection of their final action research reports indicated a new discovery: children learn from

Preservice Teachers Conducting Action Research 53

developing, discussing, and researching their own questions, and that process informsinstruction. The questions of the children, even for more traditional teachers like Maeve whostarted her curriculum project with a baseline quiz, became the focus of the curriculum, thus,informing her action research project.

Helen’s curriculum project on cars was chosen by the children in a multiage familygroup home. She began the project by recording what the children knew about cars andwhat more they wanted to learn. Based on her data analysis, Helen explained: “The childrenwould come up with and eventually answer their own questions about cars. This strategy ofquestioning and research in a multi-age environment united the age groups with a commoninterest.” Other benefits were documented such as showing courtesy in listening to andanswering questions or working with others on collages or car displays. Through hercolor-coded entries, Helen sorted her project data into two categories: 1) that thechildren’s learning occurred through field trips, collages, drawings, various textures, andparts associated with cars and 2) her own professional development was an outgrowth ofthe action research project. She explained, “I learned through utilizing various teachingmethods that each child will have a method they learn best from.” The children in Helen’sclassroom shared their “research” on cars with university faculty, students, and parents ina university exhibit of their collages, drawings, and charts thereby affirming their work, aswell as the action research project of the preservice teacher.

The children in Cathy’s classroom focused on bugs during their curriculum project.The project was documented with questions and answers from the children as assessmentdata recorded in Cathy’s anecdotal records. She began the project with a KWL discussioncharting how much the children knew about bugs. Their answers were varied: “ladybugs,” “mosquito bite hurts myself,” and “find bugs outside.” She recorded what theywanted to know about bugs and developed lessons around the children’s inquiries. Cathyimplemented various questioning strategies throughout the project to assess the continu-ous development of learning and vocabulary. The children created various art projectsusing real bugs as “models” (collected during outdoor playtime) and participated freely inpantomime involving crawling like certain kinds of bugs. According to Cathy’s codingand final reflections, during the postproject KWL activity when she compared the chart ofwhat they had learned with what they wanted to learn earlier, their “bug vocabulary” haddeveloped to include ants, bees, spiders, grasshoppers, and suckers that attracted bugs.They also related answers to questions that identified characteristics of bugs such as“mosquito bite hurts myself” and analogies like this were was carried out throughout thestudy of mosquitoes.

Bugs were also discussed within the context of health and cooking, thus creating,according to Cathy’s reflective journal, “opportunities for cross-curricular activities.” All ofthe children could identify the number of legs on the bugs and colors or designs associatedwith each bug studied, as well as their habitats (e.g., the difference between a hive and aweb). Cathy wrote about the experience in her final action report: “As a result of the actionresearch project, I realized how much I was exposing them [the children] to all sorts ofbugs as well as all areas of curriculum—something that I might not have been aware ofbefore. This helped me fill in the blanks about what I needed to do on a daily basis.”

Learning Stations. The four preservice teachers who implemented learning stations aspart of their project approach to teaching found that development of the stations was avery individualized concept, especially in environments that included infants and toddlerswhere learning development spanned a number of stages. Based on her color coded find-ings, Hannah wrote in her final action research report, “I learned from this project that it is

54 R. A. Moore and J. L. Gilliard

important to remember that each activity [in the station] can be beneficial to all age groupsbut [needs to be] differently organized for each child.”

The learning stations that held the most interest for children were noted in five of thefinal action research reports as stations for 1) sensory development, especially texturesinvolving food; 2) music, art, and dramatic play such as cooking; 3) cars and other motorskills; and 4) reading. The younger children typically preferred the sensory areas, the tod-dlers and preschool children enjoyed the dramatic play and cars, while the older childrensuch as those in Sally’s after-school program and Deb and Helen’s multiage settingenjoyed the literacy and research stations.

The learning stations encouraged the children to make connections to real-life situa-tions such as cooking and serving food and reading menus. One example comes from Loriein describing what the children were learning from the car stations which were designed tohelp the children learn certain types of environmental print like “stop,” “go,” and “right ofway.” She wrote in her final action research report, “I had asked the children at the begin-ning what the stop sign was for. No one was able to recognize what it was. After having thestop sign up for a while, E. stopped at it before driving her tricycle down the sidewalk.”

Organization and Delivery of Curriculum

Occurring over 50% of the time in the reflective journal writing of the preservice teach-ers was discussion about how their coded data revealed organization and delivery ofcurriculum as integral to assessment and instruction. This was especially important tolearning stations and to the curriculum in the trees and volcanoes project whichinvolved teacher research and developmentally appropriate organization and delivery ofcurriculum.

In another example, Lorie built on what the children are learning in the car stationabout “right of way” by organizing another activity connecting their new knowledge toauthentic situations. She wrote in her final action research report:

I learned that more concepts can be introduced as time goes by. For example,the “roadway” goes right by the gate that leads into the play yard where thesensory, reading, and art areas are located. One day I took sidewalk chalk andmade a sidewalk coming out of that area so those crossing into the area hadthe “right of way.”

Setting up the curriculum in various kinds of environments was critical to all of theresearch studies. The preservice teachers wanted to learn how the organization and man-agement of their various curriculum projects, studied through action research methods,met the learning, interests, and developmental needs of the children. All of the reflectivejournals mentioned positive, interactive environments in which to deliver curriculum asintegral to positive learning, as well as to the encouragement of appropriate behaviors.Joan wrote in her final action research project report, “When the environment possessesthe elements of learning, then learning will occur.”

Question 2. What did the Preservice Teachers Learn as a Result of Conducting their Action Research Projects?

This question was an extrapolation of themes from the data: (a) Learning is motivatedthrough interactive contexts, and (b) modeling and teacher involvement are important to

Preservice Teachers Conducting Action Research 55

learning. The data sources informing this question were the structured interviews, the finalaction research project reports, and the reflective journals.

Learning is Motivated Through Interactive Contexts

Interactive involvement in children’s learning was characterized in the structured inter-views conducted by Jennifer and Rita midway through the study. During the interviews,each of the preservice teachers discussed the occasions when they facilitated learningthrough questioning, modeling, or participatory involvement. They often cited instanceswhen learning was reinforced or reciprocated by the children. The value of interactive learn-ing context and environments was emphasized as a discovery the preservice teachers docu-mented throughout their data sources. Joan explained this concept in her reflective journal:

Oftentimes parents or other adults question why we don’t do more memoriza-tion or specific counting activities. I think the learning outcomes from this sta-tion are a great example of why we don’t. The children learned somethingduring this play. The children can now say the word ‘one’ and know the valueof ‘one.’

Sustaining children’s interest and curiosity was key to creating interactive learningcontexts. For example, Jasmine’s project on rocks was designed around the children’sinterest. She found that she carried out the activities on rocks much longer than otherlessons because of her ability to motivate interactive learning through rock hunts, rockcollage work, and “breaking a rock in a sock” to better describe the make-up of the rock.She summarized the project’s success in her final action research report:

This is the most successful project I have completed as a Head Start teacher.By consciously observing the children and documenting their increased par-ticipation in hands-on activities, I was able to make the instruction relevant tothe children’s learning accomplishments.

Literacy Learning Through Interactive Contexts

The preservice teachers learned about their role as facilitator of interactive learning byexperimenting with a variety of teaching strategies for literacy learning. For example,Sally and Deb’s projects were research- and literacy-directed. Sally commented that thechildren’s discussions and group research about volcanoes led her to observe conversationsin which they confidently used scientific terms, such as “magma” and “chemicalreactions” to describe the development of volcanoes. One of Sally’s greatest discoveriesduring her action research was that only three of the children were able to remember factsthey learned from reading books while the majority, particularly the younger children inher after-school program, remembered more about volcanoes from interactive learningexperiments and activities she designed. Motivating children in an after-school learningprogram presents obvious challenges. Sally wrote in her final action research report:“The fact of the matter is they have already sat in school all day and they need to be able tohave fun and move around.”

Deb’s project also involved multiage children. She engaged the children in interactivereading activities (Reutzel & Cooter, 2003), one of the most powerful approaches to

56 R. A. Moore and J. L. Gilliard

teaching reading comprehension and vocabulary. Deb’s project, as well as others,demonstrated the value of informed instruction using a variety of literary genres. Shecombined fiction and nonfiction readings about trees and their value to humankind,stopping the reading to explain or ask the children to express their ideas, concepts, orquestions about the reading. The children also painted trees, flapped their wings likebirds in the trees, and built birds nests. They also visited the local art gallery where anartist who specialized in painting trees was showing his work. Art, literature, and sci-ence came alive in Deb’s instruction. She describes such a lesson in her reflectivejournal:

I brought in the ‘Peace Tree’ which is actually a large branch off of one of thetrees that line the creek where I live. The children were curious as to whythe “tree” was there, how the tree felt when they touched it, and how itsmelled. I read the book The Giving Tree by Shel Silverstein. When the part inthe story came for the boy to cut the tree branches and her trunk to meet theneeds of the ‘boy’ the children commented in unison, ‘That’s sad.’

Both Deb’s and Sally’s projects, by documenting student work and the structured inter-views Deb conducted with each of the children, clearly showed that interactive literacylearning is a motivating instructional tool connecting knowledge to learning and learningto literature. In Deb’s study, this is especially noticeable based on her extensive use of theillustrated picture books on trees and animal life in the trees.

The Importance of Modeling and Teacher Involvement in Learning

All of the preservice teachers indicated they learned more about the value of modeling byreflecting on their own actions as teachers. They also discovered their role as participant inthe learning process. For example, in Hannah’s classroom of infants and toddlers, sheclearly documented the learning differences that occurred when she was active andinvolved in the children’s activity. She explained how this process evolved in her finalaction research report:

Initially, I placed a tote of bears in the room and did not give the children anyinstruction for play or other activity. They did not use the bears or pay attentionto them as part of the environment. The next day, I grabbed a bear and begandoing the emotions to the chant, ‘Teddy Bear, Teddy Bear.’ Following my lead,the children began to pick up the bears and some tried to do the motions.

Eventually, this activity became a part of the daily morning routine, varied by Hannah’sobservations of the children’s preferences or learning styles.

Discussion

We approached action research as a framework and method for reflectively informedinstructional decision making in the professional development of novice teachers andresearchers. The purpose of this study was to investigate the use of action research bypreservice teachers enrolled in an early childhood education program as a tool for studentassessment and instructional decision making. The process of classroom research, as dem-onstrated through the data and data examples, has informed the growth and development

Preservice Teachers Conducting Action Research 57

of the preservice teachers of the study in tandem with the growth and development of thelearners which underscores the social constructivist principles introduced earlier.

The use of action research method by early childhood majors provided a method forsystematically reflecting on assessment and instructional decision making in early educa-tion centers. We found that action research presents a simple, reliable research processthat may be used to focus teaching questions as well as organize and interpret the multipleclassroom data sources that reflect student learning in early learning centers.

What the preservice teachers learned contributed to their own knowledge base as wellas to the knowledge base of their peers and other professionals. We also believe the findingsindicated by the various examples presented underscore the value of interactive learningenvironments and developmentally appropriate practice that deviates from more traditional,prescriptive instruction. The instruction that emerged from the 10 preservice teachers’projects was organic and founded on the emerging data they examined continuously duringthe project. Although they were newcomers to the method, they demonstrated that throughpractice and guidance, they were able to utilize action research to make instructionaldecisions on a daily basis.

Concluding Thoughts

Data from the preservice teachers identified two areas of greatest professional development:a) the use of action research method for guiding assessment and instruction in the classroom,and b) the use of action research to explore and document effective and appropriate curric-ulum and learning environments for a variety of ages, abilities, and levels of development.As discussed previously, this study is unique in that it represents the use of undergraduateaction research in early childhood at the associate degree level; and it contributes to theearly childhood teacher education knowledge base in the use of action research method inearly learning centers as a means of professional development as well as a tool to guidedaily instruction, problem solving, and decision making.

The authors believe that conducting action research in early childhood classroomspresents a means for daily inquiry and problem solving in classrooms uniquely rich indifferentiated learning, ages, developmental stages, as well as physical, social, and verbalabilities. The findings from our small study alone suggest to us as teacher educators greatpotential for research in this arena fueling a unique and future knowledge base for earlychildhood education and curriculum.

Limitations of the Study

The authors suggest that one of the limitations of the study identifies with the preserviceteachers’ lack of experience in conducting action research. The results of the interviewsthat Rita and Jennifer conducted midway through the project with the preservice teachersunveiled their hesitancy about the accuracy of their research questions (were the questionsasking what they wanted to know?) and their limited experiences in coding and analyzingdata. Another limitation includes the varying amounts of knowledge and experience thatthe individual preservice teachers connected to the research inquiry setting. Some werenot as comprehensive or confident in their data gathering and analysis as others, possiblybecause they did not yet fully understand the value of classroom research in professionaldevelopment as well as its potential for continuous problem solving during ongoing teachingroutines.

58 R. A. Moore and J. L. Gilliard

References

Arhar, J., Holly, M., & Kasten, W. (2001). Action research for teachers: Traveling the yellow brickroad. Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Bakley, S. (2001). Through the lens of sensory integration: A different way of analyzing challengingbehavior. Young Children, 56(6), 70–76.

Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory andmethod. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Borgia, E., & Schuler, D. (1996). Action research in early childhood education. Urbana, IL. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED401047)

Calhoun, E. (2002). Action research for school improvement. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 18–25.Carr, M., May, H., & Podmore, V. (2000). Learning and teaching stories: Action research on evalu-

ation in early childhood. Final Report to the Ministry of Education. Wellington, New Zealand:New Zealand Council for Education Research and The Ministry of Education. Retrieved April30, 2007, from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/23/f9/d1.pdf

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1993) Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York:Teachers College Press.

Glanz, J. (2003). Action research: An educational leaders guide to school improvement. Norwood,MA: Christopher–Gordan.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. London: Sage.Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging

confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.,pp. 191–216). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hatch, A., Greer, T., & Bailey, K. 2006. Student produced action research in early childhood teachereducation. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 27(2), 205–12.

Hubbard, R., & Power, B. (2003). The art of classroom inquiry. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Jones, E., & Nimmo, J. (1994). Emergent curriculum. Washington, DC: NAEYC.Lefever-Davis, S. (2002). Trends in teacher certification and literacy. Reading Teacher, 56(2), 196–197.Leland, C., & Kasten, W. (2002). Literacy education for the 21st century: It’s time to close the

factory. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 18 (1), 5–15.Levine, M. (2002). Why invest in professional development schools? Educational Leadership,

59(8), 65–68.Moore, R. A. (2004). Classroom research for teachers: A practical guide. Norwood, MA: Christopher-

Gordon.Moore, R. A. (2007). Taking action: Assessing the impact of preservice teaching on learning. Action

in Teacher Education, 28(3), 53–60.National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for

America’s future. New York: Author.Reutzel, R., & Cooter, R. (2003) Strategies for reading assessment and instruction (2nd ed.). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.Shoyer, G., & Yahnke, S. (2001, September). Professional development schools and student achieve-

ment: Do we make a difference? Paper presented to the annual Kansas Coalition Conference,Olathe, KS.

Vacca, R. & Vacca, J. (2004) Content read reading strategies (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:Allyn & Bacon.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.(M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Trans. & Eds.). Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.


Top Related