Karen Elinich @ Pepperdine University

	Karen Elinich @ Pepperdine University
kelinich@pepperdine.edu kelinich@yahoo.com kelinich@fi.edu	Action Research Project Portfolio 2004-2005
	638B - Reading Activity Task: Read 1-2 papers and summarize what you learn in our class discussions. Pay particular attention to the research questions and the review of literature. #1. Feldman \| #2. Macdonald, Sloan, Miele Feldman, A. (1996). Enhancing the practice of physics teachers: Mechanisms for the generation and sharing of knowledge and understanding in collaborative action research. Journal of research in science teaching, 33(5), 513-540. Retrieved September, 2004 from http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~afeldman/ActionResearchPapers/ARpapersindex.html Notes I hope this paper fits the bill for the task, because I found it extremely valuable. I began this task by deciding to search for papers that related to informal science education or science inquiry practice. Feldman's paper is an external analysis of the Physics Teachers Action Research Group. While reported from a third-person perspective, it was easy to see to the action research process that the physics teachers followed. Feldman's research questions: How does teacher knowledge originate among practicing teachers? What are the ways that teachers' knowledge about teaching and their educational situations grow when they are engaged collaboratively with other teachers in inquiry on their own practice? How do teachers generate and share knowledge when interacting with their colleagues? Feldman's collaborative action research model: enhanced normal practice - involves anecdote-telling, the trying out of ideas, and systematic inquiry. Enhanced normal practice looks different from the two common forms of action research practiced in the US (classroom action research and the teacher-research associated with the Writing Projects). Enhanced normal practice is a way that teachers can improve their practice while coming to a better understanding of that practice. I like the simplicity of Feldman's enhanced normal practice model. It seems very logical and very practical to me. It reminds me of Kleiman's summary of effective professional development: Principles of Effective Professional Development In order to be effective, e-learning for teachers must reflect the principles of effective professional development. Research has led to agreement on a number of key principles of successful professional development practices for K-12 educators. In a summary of these principles, Sparks and Hirsh (1997) describe a “paradigm shift” in staff development, away from one-day in-service presentations to professional development as an integral, ongoing part of teachers' lives. Major research studies and syntheses by Shulman (1987), Stigler and Stevenson (1991), Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin (1995), Sparks and Hirsch (1997), Ball and Cohen (1999), National Foundation for the Improvement of Education (1996), National Staff Development Council (2001a), Borasi and Fonzi (2002), and others consistently agree that professional development is more effective when it: • fosters a deepening of subject-matter knowledge, a greater understanding of learning, and a greater appreciation of students' needs; • centers around the critical activities of teaching and learning—planning lessons, evaluating student work, developing curriculum, improving classroom practices and increasing student learning—rather than on abstractions and generalities; • builds on investigations of practice through cases that involve specific problems of practice, questions, analysis, reflection, and substantial professional discourse; • values and cultivates a culture of collegiality, involving knowledge and experience sharing among educators; and, • is sustained, intensive, and continuously woven into the everyday fabric of the teaching profession, through modeling, coaching, and collaborations. (Kleiman, 2004) It strikes me that enhanced normal practice reflects all of these principles. Collaborative Action Research and the Reform Agenda: The success of the current science education reform agenda is dependent upon thousands of experienced teachers changing their practice. While this model is being challenged, there is still the suggestion that outside experts need to come into schools to tell teachers how to be professionals. CAR is the alternative. The implications are significant. Action research operationalized as enhanced normal practice could serve as a staff development model that results in teachers improving and gaining knowledge and understanding about their practice. Bravo. I really like Feldman's argument here. Overall, I found it interesting that Feldman derives his "enhanced normal practice" model from the Writing Projects and then applies it in science education. I am somewhat familiar with the Writing Projects (Susan Lytle's work in Philadelphia) and I had never before thought of them as a useful model for professional development with science teachers. Feldman's ideas are intriguing. Of course, Feldman is working with a highly-motivated group of high school physics teachers. Would his model work as well with a garden-variety population of K-8 science teachers? The PTARG brings an above-average depth of content knowledge to the activity. Their "normal practice" is already significantly more "enhanced" than the average science teacher's. Still, I find his model interesting and will continue to reflect upon it. Feldman's Literature Review is excellent and includes numerous references that I will pursue. Kleiman, G.M. (2004). Meeting the Need for High Quality Teachers: e-Learning Solutions. [NCLB e-Learning Leadership Summit White Paper]. Retrieved August, 2004 from http://www.nclbtechsummits.org/summit2/presentations/Kleiman-MeetingtheNeed.pdf A Science Museum's Expedition into the World of Formal Teacher Development: First Three Years of a Five-Year Action Research Study. Macdonald, M., Sloan, H., Miele, E. (2002) A Science Museum's Expedition into the World of Formal Teacher Development: First Three Years of a Five-Year Action Research Study. Their action research question was: What would it take to include Museum learning experiences in the required curriculum for preparing and certifying teachers? The five salient cornerstones of their work: 1. Mindfulness of reform policies and standards for science teaching; 2. Structure museum learning opportunities in the same way that formal programs do ( courses, seminars, institutes, contact hours, performance assessments, credits); 3. Exercise scholarship through evaluation, revision, and dissemination of initiatives; 4. Respect the mission and vision of partner institutions; 5. Maintain clarity in the fact that this "expedition" is not just about "institutionalization" -- ultimately, it is about facilitating access to knowledge and resources. Preliminary conclusions: At this mid-point in the expedition, we have been able to invent a variety of Museum-based formats for providing instruction and resources to teachers. AMNH provides Museum-based professional development to 5,000 teachers a year. (!) They began their action research (which they call "expedition") by assessing resources and identifying the structures/standards that would be effective in the teacher education arena. They moved on to the "courting of the deans of education" to get the needed access to formal teacher education. Despite the title, their report does not explicitly reference their action research process. However, a careful reading reveals the implicit structure. They began with their central question, proceeded to develop a structure for their inquiry, acted, and reflected continually. Along the way, they paused to draw conclusions and adjusted their action accordingly. In my reading of this paper, I attempted to apply Feldman's Collaborative Action Research model. (Their action research was positively collaborative.) I believe that Feldman's "enhanced normal practice" model applies here. The authors mention that they began by "assessing resources" and "identifying structures." Knowing life inside a museum education department, I feel confident that their process took the form of anecdote-telling. They then moved on to the trying out of ideas through the pilot courses. After having some early success with the pilots, they re-structured their offerings and moved into the systematic inquiry phase. I'm a little disappointed that this paper didn't quite live up to its title. I would have liked to read the authors' perspectives on the action research process itself, but, overall, I definitely count this paper as a treasure for my own action research. I am pleased to be able to apply the Feldman model (even if just in my reflection process) to other action as it is helping me to see a bigger picture. Another reason that I count this paper as a treasure in my hunt is that it has a superb reference list which includes a few citations that I had not seen previously.

Action Research Project Portfolio

2004-2005

638B - Reading Activity

Task: Read 1-2 papers and summarize what you learn in our class discussions. Pay particular attention to the research questions and the review of literature.

#1. Feldman | #2. Macdonald, Sloan, Miele

Feldman, A. (1996). Enhancing the practice of physics teachers: Mechanisms for the generation and sharing of knowledge and understanding in collaborative action research. Journal of research in science teaching, 33(5), 513-540. Retrieved September, 2004 from
http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~afeldman/ActionResearchPapers/ARpapersindex.html

Notes

I hope this paper fits the bill for the task, because I found it extremely valuable. I began this task by deciding to search for papers that related to informal science education or science inquiry practice.

Feldman's paper is an external analysis of the Physics Teachers Action Research Group. While reported from a third-person perspective, it was easy to see to the action research process that the physics teachers followed.

Feldman's research questions:

How does teacher knowledge originate among practicing teachers?

What are the ways that teachers' knowledge about teaching and their educational situations grow when they are engaged collaboratively with other teachers in inquiry on their own practice?

How do teachers generate and share knowledge when interacting with their colleagues?

Feldman's collaborative action research model:

enhanced normal practice - involves anecdote-telling, the trying out of ideas, and systematic inquiry.

Enhanced normal practice looks different from the two common forms of action research practiced in the US (classroom action research and the teacher-research associated with the Writing Projects).

Enhanced normal practice is a way that teachers can improve their practice while coming to a better understanding of that practice.

I like the simplicity of Feldman's enhanced normal practice model. It seems very logical and very practical to me. It reminds me of Kleiman's summary of effective professional development:

Principles of Effective Professional Development

In order to be effective, e-learning for teachers must reflect the principles of effective professional development. Research has led to agreement on a number of key principles of successful professional development
practices for K-12 educators. In a summary of these principles, Sparks and Hirsh (1997) describe a “paradigm shift” in staff development, away from one-day in-service presentations to professional development as
an integral, ongoing part of teachers' lives. Major research studies and syntheses by Shulman (1987), Stigler and Stevenson (1991), Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin (1995), Sparks and Hirsch (1997), Ball and
Cohen (1999), National Foundation for the Improvement of Education (1996), National Staff Development Council (2001a), Borasi and Fonzi (2002), and others consistently agree that professional development is
more effective when it:

• fosters a deepening of subject-matter knowledge, a greater understanding of learning, and a greater appreciation of students' needs;
• centers around the critical activities of teaching and learning—planning lessons, evaluating student work, developing curriculum, improving classroom practices and increasing student learning—rather than on
abstractions and generalities;
• builds on investigations of practice through cases that involve specific problems of practice, questions, analysis, reflection, and substantial professional discourse;
• values and cultivates a culture of collegiality, involving knowledge and experience sharing among educators; and,
• is sustained, intensive, and continuously woven into the everyday fabric of the teaching profession, through modeling, coaching, and collaborations.

(Kleiman, 2004)

It strikes me that enhanced normal practice reflects all of these principles.

Collaborative Action Research and the Reform Agenda:

The success of the current science education reform agenda is dependent upon thousands of experienced teachers changing their practice.

While this model is being challenged, there is still the suggestion that outside experts need to come into schools to tell teachers how to be professionals. CAR is the alternative.

The implications are significant. Action research operationalized as enhanced normal practice could serve as a staff development model that results in teachers improving and gaining knowledge and understanding about their practice.

Bravo. I really like Feldman's argument here.

Overall, I found it interesting that Feldman derives his "enhanced normal practice" model from the Writing Projects and then applies it in science education. I am somewhat familiar with the Writing Projects (Susan Lytle's work in Philadelphia) and I had never before thought of them as a useful model for professional development with science teachers. Feldman's ideas are intriguing.

Of course, Feldman is working with a highly-motivated group of high school physics teachers. Would his model work as well with a garden-variety population of K-8 science teachers? The PTARG brings an above-average depth of content knowledge to the activity. Their "normal practice" is already significantly more "enhanced" than the average science teacher's. Still, I find his model interesting and will continue to reflect upon it.

Feldman's Literature Review is excellent and includes numerous references that I will pursue.

Kleiman, G.M. (2004). Meeting the Need for High Quality Teachers: e-Learning Solutions. [NCLB e-Learning Leadership Summit White Paper]. Retrieved August, 2004 from
http://www.nclbtechsummits.org/summit2/presentations/Kleiman-MeetingtheNeed.pdf

A Science Museum's Expedition into the World of Formal Teacher Development: First Three Years of a Five-Year Action Research Study.

Macdonald, M., Sloan, H., Miele, E. (2002) A Science Museum's Expedition into the World of Formal Teacher Development: First Three Years of a Five-Year Action Research Study.

Their action research question was:

What would it take to include Museum learning experiences in the required curriculum for preparing and certifying teachers?

The five salient cornerstones of their work:

1. Mindfulness of reform policies and standards for science teaching;

2. Structure museum learning opportunities in the same way that formal programs do ( courses, seminars, institutes, contact hours, performance assessments, credits);

3. Exercise scholarship through evaluation, revision, and dissemination of initiatives;

4. Respect the mission and vision of partner institutions;

5. Maintain clarity in the fact that this "expedition" is not just about "institutionalization" -- ultimately, it is about facilitating access to knowledge and resources.

Preliminary conclusions: At this mid-point in the expedition, we have been able to invent a variety of Museum-based formats for providing instruction and resources to teachers.

AMNH provides Museum-based professional development to 5,000 teachers a year. (!)

They began their action research (which they call "expedition") by assessing resources and identifying the structures/standards that would be effective in the teacher education arena.

They moved on to the "courting of the deans of education" to get the needed access to formal teacher education.

Despite the title, their report does not explicitly reference their action research process. However, a careful reading reveals the implicit structure.

They began with their central question, proceeded to develop a structure for their inquiry, acted, and reflected continually. Along the way, they paused to draw conclusions and adjusted their action accordingly.

In my reading of this paper, I attempted to apply Feldman's Collaborative Action Research model. (Their action research was positively collaborative.) I believe that Feldman's "enhanced normal practice" model applies here. The authors mention that they began by "assessing resources" and "identifying structures." Knowing life inside a museum education department, I feel confident that their process took the form of anecdote-telling. They then moved on to the trying out of ideas through the pilot courses. After having some early success with the pilots, they re-structured their offerings and moved into the systematic inquiry phase.

I'm a little disappointed that this paper didn't quite live up to its title. I would have liked to read the authors' perspectives on the action research process itself, but, overall, I definitely count this paper as a treasure for my own action research. I am pleased to be able to apply the Feldman model (even if just in my reflection process) to other action as it is helping me to see a bigger picture.

Another reason that I count this paper as a treasure in my hunt is that it has a superb reference list which includes a few citations that I had not seen previously.