This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 02 November 2014, At: 10:42Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Action in Teacher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uate20

Teacher Development through Action Research: ACase Study of an Elementary TeacherKaren Goodnough aa University of Rochester , USAPublished online: 04 Jan 2012.

To cite this article: Karen Goodnough (2001) Teacher Development through Action Research: A Case Study of anElementary Teacher, Action in Teacher Education, 23:1, 37-46, DOI: 10.1080/01626620.2001.10463053

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2001.10463053

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitabilityfor any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinionsand views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy ofthe Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources ofinformation. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution inany form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Teacher Development through Action Research: A Case Study of an Elementary Teacher

Karen Goodnough University of Rochester

Abstract

This paper describes the experiences of an elementary teacher; Ingrid, as she conducted an action research project in science with her grade five students. By adopting the framework of action research within the context of an action research group consisting of four teachers and a university researcher/ facilitatol; she was able to critically examine her instructional and assessment practices and to make changes in those practices. She attributed her personal and professional growth primarily to the collaboration and support that manifested itself through the action research group. This case study provides supporting evidence for the value of action research as an effective and feasible form of teacher development, while acknowledging both its strengths and limitations.

Introduction

Action research has been applied to educational settings in many ways and for a variety of purposes (university credits, school reform, and professional development, for example). Although different approaches to action research exist, convincing theoretical and practical arguments have been espoused for the adoption of action research as a means to enhance teachers' practice and understanding of that practice, to contribute to the knowledge base of teaching, and to achieve social and political change (Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993; Elliott, 1978, 1991; McNiff, Lomax, & Whitehead, 1996; N o B e & Stevenson, 1995).

This case study reports on the experiences of an elementary teacher, Ingrid, as she conducted an action research project within the context of an action research group consisting of two high school science teachers, two elementary teachers, and a university researcher-facilitator, the author of this study. The author has chosen to focus on Ingrid's experiences because they reveal many of the strengths of the action research process, while holding up to scrutiny many of its inherent weaknesses. By reporting on the unique experiences of Ingrid as an action researcher, the author is building upon the current understanding of action research and providing evidence for the feasibility and practicality of action research as a means to foster teacher development.

Action Research: A Vehicle for Teacher Development

Many educators believe that teachers should play an integral role in all aspects of curriculum planning (Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Connelly & Clandinin, 1988; Schwab, 1977). Stenhouse (1 975) believes that curriculum development rests on teacher development and that teachers should engage in systematic study of their own work to determine what is and what is not effective. Teacher development is a very broad term that may encompass many areas, ranging from personal teacher biographies to classroom practice. In addition, many different forms of teacher development exist (working with scientists, study groups, coaching and mentoring, professional networks, workshops and courses, and action research, for example) and have been adopted in attempts to effect positive teacher change. Loucks-Horsley (1999) uses the metaphor of a bridge to refer to professional development. In this metaphor, professional development is viewed as a means for teachers to move from "where [they are] to where [they want] to be" (p.2). Furthermore, she goes on to state that professional development experiences must be uniquely tailored to meet the needs of those involved.

Action research offers one means to transform teachers and teaching. As mentioned previously, it comes in many forms and varies commensurately with the goals of the research being conducted. According to Grundy (1982). three minimal requirements must be met for the research to qualify as action research.

The project takes as its subject matter a social practice, regarding it as a strategic action susceptible to improvement; the project proceeds through a spiral of cycles of planning, acting, observing and reflecting, with each of these activities being systematically and self-critically implemented and interrelated; and the project involves those responsible for the practice in each of the moments of the activity, widening participation in the project gradually to include others affected by the practice and maintaining collaborative control of the process. Consequently, action research, as described above, has the potential to help practitioners in ameliorating the gap between theory and practice, in fostering critical self-reflection about practice, and in enhancing teachers' knowledge and understanding of their practice.

37

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

10:

42 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Rearick and Feldman (1999) offer a comprehensive, three-tiered framework that can help to clarify the nature of action research. In this framework, action research is classified according to its theoretical orientation (technical, practical, emancipatory), its purpose (professional growth, personal understanding, and political empowerment) and the nature of reflection present (autobiographical, collaborative, and communal). In this study, the action research adopted was practical in orientation; the practitioners and the researcher attempted to understand the environment and context in which the action occurred. There was an emphasis on fostering personal and professional growth through both individual reflection and group collaboration.

The remainder of this paper will provide the context of study, describe how Ingrid engaged in action research, and discuss how she benefited from and was challenged by the action research process. Discussion and conclusions are offered at the end of the paper.

Context of the Study

This interpretive case study (Merriam, 1998; Stake, 1994; Yin, 1994) of Ingrid's experiences is part of a larger study that had two primary foci: to explore multiple intelligences (MI) theory (Gardner, 1983; see Appendix for more information) and its merit for science teaching and learning and to study the process of action research as a framework for personal and professional development of teachers. The author recruited research participants informally, as well as through a formal visit to a graduate class (science education) at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto (OISERJT). Ingrid, one of the students in this class, expressed an interest in becoming a member of a group of teachers who would link multiple intelligences theory, science teaching and learning, and action research. All volunteers in the study received a university half-credit for participating in the study.

Ingrid joined the action research group because it would afford her a structured setting to learn more about multiple intelligences theory, something she had been interested in for quite a while:

This is my opportunity to learn more about the theory. Because just like everything else, it was something I was always interested in . . . but never had time to do anything about i t , because there were always billions of things I had to do for school. So it was actually an opportunity . . . to actually be part of a group where I would be learning about something I had been interested in . . . . Action research wasn't really an issue. (Ingrid, Interview, May 10, 1999).

A second reason Ingrid joined the project was to learn more about science and how to teach science and to get help (from the author and the group) with interpreting a new Ontario science curriculum (K-8):

Because I have not done science, it becomes a question of how do you do it to teach it. This is my first year teaching this curriculum so it is very difficult for me to feel comfortable" (Ingrid, Interview, January 24, 1999)

This was Ingrid's sixth year of teaching, but her first time teaching grade five. Her first two years of teaching were at first and second grade and the last two had been in a special education language program. She had a B.A. honors degree and a B.Ed. (primary/junior) degree, but had very little training or experience in the teaching of science. At the time of this study, she was a part-time student in an M.Ed. program. Ingrid's teaching responsibilities included all subjects in a class of 26 fifth-grade students. Two students were classified as learning disabled, and one child was labeled exceptional, having pervasive developmental disorder and thus requiring a full-time teaching assistant.

Method

To ensure credibility and consistency of the case (Guba, 1981), several data collection methods were adopted. Twelve meetings (a total of 30 hours of audiotape) were held over a six-month period (January to June, 1999); taped discussion at meetings was later transcribed and interpreted by the author. Each research participant was interviewed (semi-structured) at the beginning and at the end of the study, while numerous informal interviews, less structured, conversational formats (Merriam, 1998), occurred after meetings and at school sites during and after the teaching day. In addition to meetings and interviews, the author visited each participant's school on four to six occasions, assuming the role of a participant-observer. All research participants, including the author, recorded ideas, thoughts, and reflections in personal journals as the study progressed. To achieve authenticity throughout the study, member checks were conducted, that is, research participants were provided with my interpretations of the data and invited to offer feedback about the interpretations.

38

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

10:

42 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

As mentioned earlier, this action research project had a practical orientation with a focus on enhancing personal and professional development through individual and group collaboration. The group engaged in the action research cycle of planning, fact-finding, execution, and analysis, while reflection occurred at all stages of the process. McKernan ( 199 1) describes this cyclic process as:

[beginning] with a general idea or difficult problem requiring resolution. This is followed by further fact-finding . . . resulting in an overall plan of how to solve the problem. This planned action is implemented, and monitored in an attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of the first action step, to plan the next step and to modify the 'overall plan' . . . . The researcher then spirals into developing a second and possibly further action steps. (p. 18)

Because of the short duration of this study, the group did not continue into a second full spiral of the action research cycle.

Initial Explorations

Although the author formulated the study's research problem, the group very quickly took ownership through exploration and study of MI theory and action research. The group discussed MI theory (its basic tenets, how it has been applied in various settings by educators, and how it could be applied within the context of science teaching) and studied the process of action research.

Prior to starting the study, Ingrid had not conducted action research and had completed very little reading on the topic. Her initial views about action research reflected a conception in which teachers take ownership of their own classrooms:

I will be short and sweet. I have not done action research before and have read very little about it. I guess my basic impression is that it stems out of the whole philosophy that researchers sitting in the university, coming up with ideas, and telling teachers what to do. It gets to the classroom and these people have never seen students before . . . it developed into an idea that maybe we should have teachers doing research in the classroom. (Ingrid, Action research session one, January 20, 1999)

Ingrid supported the concept of teachers inquiring into their own practice and felt optimistic about being part of the action research group.

After identifying and clarifying the research idea and reconnaissance (Elliott, 199 1 ), each group member constructed a plan of action. Although the group had a broad common goal (to explore MI theory and its merit for science teaching and learning), each group member pursued specific research questions. As Wells (1 994) states, teachers bring different types of knowledge to an inquiry and express preferred ways of working. Thus, the routes they follow will likewise vary and reflect personal differences.

Ingrid and one of the other group members, Celia, a fifth-grade teacher in the same school as Ingrid, worked together to plan a grade level Conservation of Energy unit, although each had a different research focus. Ingrid decided to place a strong emphasis on MI theory and assessment, "How can I use MI theory and action research to help me assess and evaluate my students' knowledge and understanding of concepts learned in science?" (Ingrid, Diary entry, March 9, 1999). As part of the action plan, Ingrid determined how she would implement her project and monitor the process. With the support of the action research group and the author's on-site support (as a participant-observer), she collected data using a variety of methods including field notes, analysis of student work, student interviews, and journal writing.

Infusing MI Theory into a Grade Five Science Unit

At the outset of the study, Ingrid had several expectations for how her involvement in the project would enhance her teaching and her students' learning: "I am hoping this project will help me in many areas of my teaching" (Ingrid, Diary entry, February 7, 1999). Not only did she want to enhance her understanding of how to assess students, she also wanted to reach more students in her classroom and to become more comfortable with teaching science and interpreting curriculum expectations in science. Table 1 provides an overview of how Ingrid structured the Conservation of Energy unit (learning expectations, learning activities, and intelligences targeted).

39

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

10:

42 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Table 1. Topics, Learning Activities, and Intelligences used in Ingrid’s Conservation of Energy Unit

ropic Vhat is Energy?

Cinetic and Potential !nergy

3nergy Sources

Zonversion of Energy

Ikansfer of Energy

Review of Concepts

Renewable and Non- renewable Resources The Usage of Renewable and Non- renewable Resources

Effective and Economic Transfer oj Energy

,earning Activities Nrite a definition of energy (I) hainstom terms that relate to energy (W) )evelop a definition for energy (W) 3eate mind maps of energy (I) teeview previous lesson (direct instruction) W) reacher demonstration using a battery, a jouncing ball, an elastic, and a spring (W) lemonstrations of kinetic and potential mergy (M) 30up presentations of demonstrations (MI . , 3uild ;potential energy device (M) Video Energy (W) List different types of energy sources using *eferences materials (M) 3roup-generated list of energy sources (W) reacher introduces the topic (direct instruction) (W) Five student centres to demonstrate the :oncept of energy conversion (M) Debriefing the activity (W) Homework projectDevelop an energy :hanging device (I) Create a device that uses a form of energy to meet a specific need (incredible machines) (I) Incredible Machine Fair (W) Rotate through five learning centres (transforming devices, whole-class mind map on bulletin board, cut-and-paste posters to describe how energy is stored, student-created riddle about a type of energy, school tour to identify forms of energy used in the schoolgraphs and tables produced) (M) Review concepts and vocabulary learned to date (W) Generate questions about any topic studied; questions presented to class for discussion

Teacher-led discussion about the topic (W) Write a poem about an energy source (I) Teacher-led discussion about the topic (W) Brainstorm list of ways energy is used today and how this affects daily life (M) Evaluate the effect on natural and man- made environments (M); group product is created using an intelligence of choice Teacher-led discussion (M) Small groups choose an energy- transforming device and answer questions

(W)

provided by the teacher; results are presented to the class (M)

[ntelligences Targeted v-L [nter v-s V-S, V-L, Intra v-L

v-s, v-L

[ntelligences of choice

V-L, Inter, B-K, Intra B-K, V-S v-L, v-s Lnter, V-L, L-M

V-L, L-M v-L

V-L, L-M, B-K, Inter

V-L, L-M L-M, B-K, Intra

L-M, V-L, B-K

Intra, Inter All intelligences targeted except the musical- rhythmic intelligence

V-L, L-M

V-L, L-M

V-L, L-M V-L, Intra V-L, L-M

L-M, Inter L-M, Intra Inter

v -L V-L, L-M, Inter, B-K

Key:

Learning Activities: I (individual assignment); M (small groups); W (whole group)

Multiple Intelligences: B-K (Bodily-Kmesthetic); Inter (Interpersonal); Intra (Intrapersonal); L -M (Logical-Mathematical); M-R (Musical-Rhythmic); N A (Naturalistic); V-L (Verball-Linguistic); V-S (Visual-Spatial)

40

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

10:

42 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Ingrid introduced her students to MI theory explicitly by establishing learning centers, with each center engaging students in learning activities that represented a type of intelligence. (This was done three weeks prior to starting the cumculum unit.) Students spent a day rotating through these activities in order to learn more about the theory and to assess their own strengths and areas that needed improvement. During the actual implementation of the unit, Ingrid adopted a variety of instructional approaches that targeted all of the intelligences. For example, students worked individually and in small cooperative groups; they conducted experiments, designed energy-transforming devices, and presented their projects; they viewed videos and constructed mind maps; and they engaged in discussion, role-playing, and reflection about their learning. Her assessment approaches included performance-based assessment, individual and group student products, and paper-and-pencil tests; her main challenge was "getting a grasp on what [the] expectations should be for each student" (Ingrid, Diary entry, May 2, 1999) as they completed learning and assessment activities.

The Action Research Process

In this study, "the influence of the teacher on curriculum and the teacher as a source of fundamental curriculum knowledge [was] . . . recognized" (Klein, 1990, p.10). Using the vehicle of action research, Ingrid engaged in studying and interpreting curriculum expectations in science, selected appropriate learning and assessment activities to support these expectations, and evaluated the merit of these activities in relation to her students. Collaboration emerged as one of the most salient features of the action research process.

Collaboration

Peters (1997) refers to collaboration as people working together to create and produce knowledge that can benefit individuals, the group, or both. Carr and Kemmis (1986) characterize collaboration as involving "all . . .participants in communication aimed at mutual understanding and consensus, in just and democratic decision-making, and common action towards achieving fulfilment for all" (p. 199). These views of collaboration are reflected in the comments of group members:

The session was very fruitful tonight and all parties learned from the ideas discussed. The group is operating in an open, collaborative manner; we are all comfortable with challenging each others' views. (Author, Diary entry, February 24, 1999)

I get bored, I can't sit still, and so for my learning style, this is much better. . . . So for me, it [action research] would really work well . . . . What you need is ongoing help until you actually get a grasp of what it is you're supposed to be doing . . . . I think it was very effective, and I think it was really worthwhile. The topic interested me, and the people were a nice cohesive group of people. (Ingrid, Interview, May 5 , 1999)

I think it [group meetings] has just reinforced everything. I know I like to come down and see what other people are doing and discuss it. You know, learn from just listening . . . sometimes when you're listening, you're learning an awful lot and getting ideas. I've learned a lot from that component of it. (Celia, Group member, Diary entry, May 5 , 1999)

I think if there was one thing, it was support. Just to validate everything that we were doing in the classroom. You get it validated not only by yourself, but three other teachers. It's almost a support network that we had here. Which was terrific. We all had the same goals and objectives, or more or less the same objectives and goals, by using MI in the classroom. Just talking about what you were doing in the classroom, what you hope to be doing in the classroom. And having people essentially saying, hey, good job. This is great, what you're doing, what we're all doing. Just for the confidence and self esteem and just acknowledgment that this is a good thing. That's what I found very beneficial (Dave, Group member, Interview, April 10, 1999).

In her diary entries, Ingrid continued to elaborate on the value of collaboration:

As I sit here and 'ponder' about this project and my feelingshsights, one thing pops into my mind-how wonderful it has been to develop a working relationship (and the beginning of a friendship with Celia [Ingrid's grade five colleague in the action research group] . . . . I think that if it were not for this project, our working relationship would not be as cohesive and supportive as it is. As teachers, we never get a chance to work this closely with another teacher. I think the groundwork has been set for a wonderful

41

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

10:

42 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

working relationship next year. (Ingrid, Diary entry, May 6 , 1999)

The group collaboration was a critical part of the action research process and group members believed it provided the support needed to foster personal and professional growth. Although the group members engaged in sharing, discourse, reflection, and feedback and provided ongoing support for each other, Ingrid experienced several challenges that caused frustration for her.

Challenges in Conducting Action Research

Although Ingrid's participation in the project was a positive experience overall, she experienced some tension and frustration while engaging in action research. She commented on this dichotomy (valuing action research while recognizing some of its inherent challenges) during a presentation a year later to a group of 80 teachers who were i n the process of conducting action research in science and technology.

What I am trying to say is that I found it [action research] extremely stressful, but in the end everything started to fall into place, and that is one of the ideas that I want to share with you . . . that the power of action research is really in the collaboration. (Ingrid, Presentation, March 27, 2000)

Ingrid's challenges centered around collecting and interpreting data, a lack of familiarity with science content, and a lack of time to engage in action research.

But all of a sudden in September, I find I have to teach weather and energy, and there is hardly any time to learn i t . . . . Right now I am about to start energy, and I have never taken a science course, other than a biology course. (Ingrid, Action research session six, February 24, 1999)

. . . It is very difficult to plan a set of activities when I still do not understand how all the subtopics relate. That is, I don't see the whole picture yet (Ingrid, Diary entry, March 14, 1999).

In a later journal entry, Ingrid talked about the tension she experienced in collecting and interpreting data.

I haven't fine-tuned my reflective techniques when I observe my students. How do I verbalize what I see? How do I relate it to the curriculum, to MI, and to the students' learning styles? (Ingrid, Diary entry, March 9, 1999)

Many authors (Elliott, 1991; Hopkins, 1985; Kelly, 1985; McKernan, 1991, Winter, 1991) have identified a lack of time as a potential barrier to practitioners' successful involvement in action research. Ingrid also found the lack of time to be a major impediment to her progress in the project:

Well, what are my conclusions about action research, MI theory, and science? These are all important- together and by themselves. Action research and MI theory are valuable on all levels and with all subjects. However, for me, this year, time and experience with the new curriculum were not on my side (Ingrid, Diary entry, May 2, 1999).

This was also Ingrid's first year teaching grade five, which added another layer of complexity to her project.

Teacher Development through Action Research

In this study, Ingrid engaged in several curriculum-building activities-she interpreted existing curriculum expectations; planned instructional and assessment activities based on those expectations; and implemented classroom activities and evaluated how and what students were learning. She used the process of action research, and through her participation in the project, she experienced several changes, both personally and professionally, that were "positive and desirable in quality" (Jackson, 1992, p.63). She became more reflective about her practice, gained more confidence in her ability to teach science, and enhanced her understanding of instruction, assessment, and learners.

42

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

10:

42 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Reflective practice

Ingrid's reflection occurred primarily as reflection-on-action (Schon, 1983), a conscious and deliberate form of thinking, feeling, and talking that occurs after events have happened and before events may occur. Ingrid engaged in introspection at all stages in the action research process, while journal writing provided a forum for more explicit introspection. The meetings of the action research group also provided opportunities for group reflection and discussion about classroom events. Ingrid attached a very high value to the action research process as a vehicle for fostering self-reflection about her practice.

I think for me, I used the framework [of action research] along with MI to help create a unit. Similar to what I did in the past . . . but being more aware of what I was doing. And why. Knowing in the end there was this end goal . . . . But along the way, it was mainly setting up the process. So I think even though I'm aware of this all the time [assessing her teaching and her students' needs]. I think having to go through these steps and this process made me think more about it. (Ingrid, Interview, May 10, 1999)

One year after the completion of the project, Ingrid made the following comments:

If I had not done my project and had the opportunity to be reflective about what I needed to change, then I don't think I would be teaching the way I teach this year. I see it [action research] as causing a major change in my focus. (Ingrid, Interview, April 12, 2000)

Teachers' knowledge

The knowledge base of teachers has been conceptualized in a variety of ways. Elbaz (1981), for example, recognizes a broad range of practical knowledge that teachers possess and use in guiding their work-knowledge of subject matter, curriculum, instruction, self, and the milieu of schooling. In another conceptualization of teacher knowledge, Grossman (1990, p. 5 ) identifies four areas of teacher knowledge: subject matter knowledge (syntactic structure, content, and substantive structures); general pedagogical knowledge (knowledge of learners, classroom management, curriculum and instruction, and other); pedagogical content knowledge (knowledge of students' understanding, curricular knowledge, knowledge of instructional strategies, and conceptions of purposes for teaching subject matter); and knowledge of context (students, community, district, and school).

Ingrid believed she added to and extended her knowledge base (subject matter knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge) in several ways-she broadened her teaching repertoire in science, developed a greater understanding of how to use and interpret authentic and performance-based forms of assessment, and added to her subject matter knowledge in science. The following comments indicate the nature of Ingrid's professional growth during the project and one year after the completion of the project:

The group helped me create a science unit which I would have struggled with on my own. I now have new knowledge about science, action research, and multiple intelligences theory which I will definitely use next year. (Ingrid, Diary entry, May 2, 1999)

So this year is a little easier . . . .There are many things I used in the project that I use this year. For instance, I use mind mapping, which I had never used before. I used response journals with my students and it's amazing the growth they have made over the year in terms of being articulate about what they want to say and actually thinking about learning. I now use rubrics, which is actually something that only came to me at the end of the project. (Ingrid, Presentation, April 12,2000)

The main difficulty was getting a grasp on what my expectations were for each student as he/she completed activities. As a result, I put the sheets aside in the hope a bolt of lightning would strike. Well, it did but only at the very end. It was only then-seeing the growth (or lack thereof for some students) that allowed me to understand how I should be looking at each piece [student's work]. (Ingrid, Diary entry, May 9, 1999)

According to Ingrid, through participation in the project she developed a much greater understanding of many aspects of her practice.

43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

10:

42 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Ingrid entered this project with very little training and experience in science and science teaching. She had never taught elementary science before and believed her pre-service training had not prepared her adequately for teaching science. After the action research experience, she felt more comfortable and confident in her ability to teach science. "I think first I would be able to decipher what was written in the [science] curriculum a little better and not panic. Now I have a framework [action research] I can use" (Ingrid, Interview, May 5, 1999).

Discussion

At the end of the project, Ingrid believed she had not met all of her original expectations. Although she had made considerable headway in developing her understanding of assessment, she stated that her goals had been unrealistic. "In retrospect, my expectations were too high. I see them as great long-term goals. I certainly know what I will be doing in early September with next year's class" (Ingrid, Diary entry, May 2, 1999). She recognized at the end of the study that her challenges and frustrations could be partly attributed to the overwhelming demands placed on her time by her teaching responsibilities. "I think that it was that time was so limited . . .I' (Ingrid, Diary entry, May, 1999).

Despite the challenges she encountered in conducting action research, Ingrid acquired a new framework (the process of action research) to assist her in becoming more reflective about her practice and in becoming proactive about making changes to her practice based on the changing needs of her students. "Sometimes the frustration can overshadow things . . . but now I feel proactive. I am proactive about what I am doing as opposed to just going in there and trying it and not reflecting on it. This [action research] gives me the framework I need" (Ingrid, Public presentation, March 27, 2000).

This study case provides evidence of the power of action research for fostering teacher development. It is important to note, however, that the type of action research adopted in this study was characterized by collaboration, and group and individual reflection. Group members worked towards achieving group goals as well as individual goals; the group engaged in critical self-reflection about what was happening; and the action research meetings became forums for the exchange of resource materials, the sharing of ideas, and the provision of feedback and moral support. Without the opportunity to meet with colleagues on a sustained, ongoing basis and to engage in critical self-reflection about curriculum theory and practice, teachers are unlikely to forge ahead with change. Practitioners need time and support to conduct action research and need to be afforded opportunities to work collaboratively with other colleagues.

Final Remarks

This paper did not focus on the author's role as a researcher/facilitator of action research; nevertheless, it behoves those who research and facilitate action research to engage in second-order inquiry to assess the effectiveness of the action research process. By monitoring the progress of the action, researchers are more likely to help teachers in reaching their goals. Both teachers and researchers need to be critically reflective about what they do so they may develop a greater understanding of what is or is not effective

Ingrid's experience in conducting action research with her grade five students provides evidence for the potential of action research to foster teacher development. Although she encountered several challenges while engaging in action research (a lack of time, a lack of familiarity with a new science curriculum, a lack of skill in collecting data), she experienced considerable personal and professional growth that fostered meaningful change in her teaching practice. As revealed in this study, action research has both strengths and limitations. Some of its major strengths include: the provision of a framework for teachers to explore and use available knowledge and to contribute to the building and creation of educational knowledge; the involvement of teachers in formulating research problems; the opportunity for teachers to share research results with other educators through various formats; and most importantly, the positive change that can occur in classroom practice. With appropriate supports, limitations such as a lack of time or a lack of teacher understanding about how to conduct research can be overcome. The author recognizes that effective professional development can assume a variety of forms and recommends that teachers and those involved in teacher development consider action research as a viable option for effecting reform in science education.

Karen Goodnough is an Assistant Professor (Science Education) at the Margaret Warner Graduate School of Education and Human Development, University of Rochester. Some of her research interests include technology-enhanced science education, teacher development. and action research.

44

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

10:

42 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

References

Armstrong, T. ( 1994). Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision

Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. London: Falmer Press. Chapman, C. (1993). V t h e shoe fits ... How to develop multiple intelligences in the class. Palatine, IL: IRWkylight. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge.

Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planners: Narratives of experience.

Elbaz, F. (1981). The teacher's 'practical knowledge': Report of a case study. Curriculum Inquiry, 11( l), 43-71. Elliott, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Milton Keynes, PA: Open University Press. Elliott, J. (1978). What is action research? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 10(4), 355-377. Gardner, H. ( 1 993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education.

Grundy, S. (1982). Three modes of action research. Curriculum Perspectives, 2(3), 23-34. Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries.

Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29(2), 75-9 1. Haggarty, B. A. (1995). Nurturing multiple intelligences: A guide to multiple intelligences theory and teaching.

New York: Addison Wesley. Jackson, P. (1 992). Helping teachers develop. In A. Hargreaves & M. Fullan (Eds.), Understanding teacher development .

New York: Teachers College Press. Kagan, S., & Kagan, M. (1998). Multiple intelligences: The complete MI book..

San Clemente, CA: Kagan Cooperative Learning. Kelly, A. (1985). Action research: What is it and what can it do? In R. G. Burgess (Ed.), Issues in educational research:

Qualitative methods. London: Falmer Press. Klein, M. F. (1990). Approaches to curriculum theory and practice. In J. T. Sears & J. D. Marshall (Eds.), Teaching

and thinking about curriculum: Critical inquiries (pp. 3- 14). New York: Teachers College Press. Loucks-Horsley, S. (1 999). Effective professional development for teachers of science. In Eisenhower National

Clearinghouse for Mathematics and Science Education (Ed.), Ideas that work: Science Professional development (pp. 2-9). Columbus, OH: Eisenhower National Clearinghouse.

New York: St. Martin's Press.

and Curriculum Development.

New York: Teachers College Press.

Toronto, Ontario: OISE Press/Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

New York: Teachers College Press.

McKernan, J. ( 1 991). Curriculum action research: A handbook of methods and resources for the reflective Practitioner.

McNiff, J., Lomax, P., & Whitehead, J. (1996). You and your action research project. New York: Routledge. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.

Noffke, S. E., & Stevenson, R. B. (Eds.). (1 995). Educational action research: Becoming critically practical.

Peters, J. M. (1997). Reflections on action research. In B. A. Quiley & G . W. Kuhne (Eds.), Creating practical knowledge

Rearick, M. L., & Feldman, A. (1999). Orientations, purposes, and reflection: A framework for understanding action

Schon, D. (1 983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Schwab, J. J. (1 977). The practical: A language for curriculum. In A. A. Bellack & H. M. Kliebard (Eds.),

Stake, R. E. (1994). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 236-247).

Stenhouse, L. (1 975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann. Wells, G . (1994). Introduction: Teacher research and educational change. In G. Wells (Ed.), Changing schools from within:

Creating communities of inquiry (pp. 1-36). Toronto, Canada: OISE Press. Winter, R. (1989). Learning from experience: Principles and practice in action research. London: The Falmer Press. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. London: Sage Publications.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

New York: Teachers College Press.

through action research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 333-349.

Curriculum and evaluation. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

London: Sage Publications.

45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

10:

42 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Appendix A Description of Gardner's Multiple Intelligences

The following represents a distillation of how a number of authors (Armstrong, 1994; Chapman, 1993; Gardner, 1993; Haggarty, 1995; Kagan & Kagan, 1998) have described each of the multiple intelligences.

The verbal-linguistic intelligence. This intelligence relies on the symbol system of words and is expressed through reading, writing, listening, and speaking. The intelligence may manifest itself as joke telling, writing prose or poetry, debating, or using complex, rich vocabulary. End states include poets, publishers, playwrights, orators, novelists, comedians, and salespersons.

The logical-mathematical intelligence. Often referred to as scientific thinking, this intelligence deals with logical- thinlung and problem-solving. Individuals who possess a highly developed logical-mathematical intelligence have developed the skills of analyzing, inducing, deducing, estimating, predicting, organizing, sequencing, questioning, and experimenting. End states include inventors, logicians, mathematicians, scientists, and accountants.

The visual-spatial intelligence. This intelligence involves spatial relations and visual images. It is expressed through drawing, painting, doodling, cartooning, creating maps, reading maps, thinking i n pictures, and being able to navigate (finding locations). End states include sculptors, architects, painters, topologists, and choreographers.

The musical-rhvthmic intelligence. - This intelligence is expressed in an understanding of and a sensitivity to rhythms, melodies, lyrics, pitch, timing, and timbre. Individuals with a strongly developed musical-rhythmic intelligence think with and about music. The intelligence may be expressed through creating songs and melodies, singing, playing instruments, and appreciating music. End states include composers, singers, conductors, and songwriters.

The bodilv-kinesthetic intelligence. - This intelligence is founded on movement and body language. People having a highly developed bodily-kmesthetic intelligence may be good athletes; enjoy physical activities such as acting, dancing, and juggling; and have strong fine and gross motor skills. End states include athletes, actors/actresses, dancers, surgeons, and choreographers.

The interpersonal intelligence. The interpersonal intelligence is reflected in those who are attracted to people and interacting with people. They may possess the following skills and characteristics: being sensitive to others' needs, empathizing and sympathizing with others, communicating and interacting with others, working as a team player, and displaying leadership skills. End states are represented by educators, doctors, politicians, sociologists, and other leaders.

The intrapersonal intellipence. - The intrapersonal intelligence is related to internal states such as memories, intuitions, moods, and values. Those having a strong intrapersonal intelligence may enjoy solitude and opportunities to reflect, be highly motivated and able to set realistic goals, and be introspective and able to control impulses. End states are represented by poets, psychologists, psychiatrists, theologians, and religious figures.

The naturalist intelligence. This intelligence manifests itself in those who study, analyze, collect, and care for plants and animals. Those who have a strong naturalist intelligence are concerned about natural phenomena and are sensitive to the interrelationships amongst living things. End states are represented by animal protectors, biologists, environmentalists, oceanographers, and veterinarians.

46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

10:

42 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014