Journal of the Korean earth science society (한국지구과학회지)

The Korean Earth Science Society (한국지구과학회)
권호 표지

Collaborative Action Research: A Case in Korean Earth Science Classrooms

  • Oh, Phil-Seok (Department of Science Education, Ewha Womans University)
  • Published : 2005.05.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study is a report of the collaborative action research which has been conducted between a Korean earth science teacher and science education researcher. A two-year long action research effort was made in order to improve the teacher’s earth science classrooms in pursuit of constructivist principles of learning. The process of the action research was described with the aim of increasing the awareness of science teachers and science education researchers regarding action research. Quantitative evidence was presented to indicate the effectiveness of the collaborative action research in creating constructivist learning environments in the classrooms. The process and quantitative evidence from the action research permitted a consideration of implications for future efforts to improve science classrooms.

Keywords

References

  1. Aldridge, J.M., Fraser, B.J., Taylor, P.C., and Chen, O.C, 2000, Constructivist learning environments in a cross-national study in Taiwan and Australia. International Journal of Science Education, 22 (1), 37-55 https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900289994
  2. Applefield, J.M., Huber, R., and Moallem, M., 2001, Constructivism in theory and practice: Toward a better understanding. The High School Journal, 84 (2), 35-53 https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2001.0007
  3. Barab, S.A. and Duffy, T.M., 2000, From practice fields to communities of practice. In Jonassen, D.H. and Land, S.M., (eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 22-56
  4. Cheng, S.-S., Chang, W.-H., Chiang, W.-H., and Guo, C.-J., 1998, Development of a professional development prograrn for science and mathematics teachers: An action research. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Diego, CA (ERIC Documentation Reproduction Service No. ED 417 989)
  5. Cochran-Smith, M. and Lytle, S.L., 1993, Inside/Outside: Teacher research and knowledge. Teachers College Press, New York, NY, 310p
  6. Confrey, J.. 1995, How compatible are radical constructivism, sociocultural approaches, and social constructivism. In Steffe, L.P: and Gale, J., (eds.), Constructivism in Education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 185-225
  7. Corey, S., 1953, Action research to improve school practices. Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY, 161p
  8. Dass, P.M., 1996, Professional development: The Iowa Chautauqua model. Science Education International, 70 (1), 18-21
  9. Duffy, T.M. and Cunningham, D.J., 1996, Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In Jonassen, D. H., (ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. MacMillan, New York, NY, 170-198
  10. Duffy, T.M., and Orrill, C., 2001, Constructivism. In Kovalchick, A. and Dawson, K., (eds.), Educational technology: An encyclopedia. Retrieved from http:// crlt.indiana.edu/publications /duffy _ub2.pdf
  11. Eisner, E.W, 2002, From episteme to phronesis to artistry in the study and improvement of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18 (4), 375-385 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00004-5
  12. Ernest, P., 1994, Varieties of constructivism: Their metaphors, epistemologies, and pedagogical implications. Hiroshima Journal of Mathematics Education, 2, 1-14
  13. 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 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199605)33:5<513::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-U
  14. Geelan, D.R., 1997, Epistemological anarchy and the many forms of constructivism. Science & Education, 6, 15-28 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017991331853
  15. Hobson, D., 2001, Action and reflection: narrative and journaling in teacher research. In Burnaford, G, Fischer, J., and Hobson, D., (eds.), Teachers doing research: The power of action through inquiry, 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaurn Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 7-27
  16. Hodson, D. and Bencze, L., 1998, Becoming critical about practical work: Changing views and changing practices through action research. International Journal of Science Education, 20 (6), 683-694 https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200606
  17. Honebein, P.C., Duffy, T.M., and Fishman, B.J., 1993, Constructivism and the design of learning environments: Context and authentic activities for learning. In Duffy, T.M., Lowyck, J., Jonassen, D.H., and Welsh, T.M., (eds.), Designing environments for constructive learning. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 87-108
  18. Hurd, P.D., 1991, Issues in linking research to science teaching. Science Education, 75 (6), 723-732 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730750611
  19. Johnson, K.E., 2000, Constructive evaluations. The Science Teacher, 67 (2), 38-41
  20. Kagan, S., 1985, Dimensions of cooperative classroom structures. In Slavin, R, Sharan, S., Kagan, S., Lazarowitz, R.H., Webb, E., and Schmuck, R., (eds.), Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn. Plenum Press, New York, NY, 67-96
  21. Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R., 1988. The action research planner, 3rd ed. Deakin University Press, Victoria, Australia, 154p
  22. Korthagen, F.A. and Kessels, J.P., 1999, Linking theory and practice: Changing the pedagogy of teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28 (4), 4-17
  23. Kyle, D.W. and Hovda, R.A, 1987, Action research: Comments on current trends and future possibilities. Peabody Journal of Education, 64 (3), 170-175 https://doi.org/10.1080/01619568709538564
  24. Kyle, W.C. and Shymansky, J.A., 1988, What research says about teachers as researchers. Science and Children, November/December 1988, 29-31
  25. Lieberman, A., 1992, The meanings of scholarly activity and the building of community. Educational Researchers, 21 (6), 5-12
  26. National Research Council, 1996, National Science Education Standards. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 262 p
  27. O'Connor, M.C., 1998, Can we trace the 'efficacy of social constructivism?' Review of Research in Education, 23, 25-71
  28. Oh, P.S. and Shin, M.-K., in press, Students' reflections on implementation of Group Investigation in Korean secondary science classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education
  29. Oh, P.S., Shin, M.-K., and Yager, R.E., 2003, Patterns of teacher questioning discourse in Korean science classrooms. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 24 (2), 61-73
  30. Oh, P.S., Shin, M.-K., and Yager, R.E., 2004, Student perceptions of peer assessment in an action research context. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 25 (3), 129-141
  31. Pedretti, E. and Hodson, D., 1995, From rhetoric to action: Implementing STS education through action research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32 (5), 463-485 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660320505
  32. Perkins, D., 1999, The many faces of constructivism. Educational Leadership, 57 (3), 6-11
  33. Phillips, D.C., 1995, The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24 (7), 5-12
  34. Pogrow, S., 1996, Reforming the wannabe reformers: Why education reforms almost always end up making things worse. Phi Delta Kappan, 77 (10), 656-663
  35. Richardson, V., 1994, Conducting research on practice. Educational Researcher, 23 (5), 5- 10
  36. Savery, J. and Duffy, T.M., 1996, Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In Wilson, B.G, (ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 135-148
  37. Sharan, Y. and Sharan, S.. 1989, Group Investigation expands cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 47 (4), 17-21
  38. Sharan, Y. and Sharan, S., 1994, Group Investigation in the cooperative classroom. In Sharan, S., (ed.), Handbook of cooperative learning methods. Greenwood Press, Westport, CT, 97-114
  39. Shin, M.-K. and Oh, P.S., 2003, Reflection on the Iowa Chautauqua Program as a science teacher inservice model. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 24 (2), 74-81
  40. Spradley, J.P., 1980, Participant Observation. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY, 208p
  41. Tabachnick, B.R. and Zeichner, K.M., 1999, Idea and action: Action research and the development of conceptual change teaching of science. Science Education, 83, 309-322 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199905)83:3<309::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-1
  42. Taylor, P.C., Fraser, B.J., and Fisher, D.L., 1997, Monitoring constructivist classroom learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 27 (4), 293-302 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(97)90011-2
  43. Whitford, B.L., Schlechty, P.C., and Shelor, L.G, 1987, Sustaining action research through collaboration: Inquiries for invention. Peabody Journal of Education, 64 (3), 151-169 https://doi.org/10.1080/01619568709538563
  44. Windschtl, M., 2002, Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72 (2), 131-175 https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543072002131