CHAPTER 39
Science Teachers as Researchers
LessonLab Research Institute
It is a statement about the growing interest in teacher research that this volume includes a separate chapter addressing science teacher research. The 1994 Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning did not review different research approaches (Gabel, 1994). And although the 1998 International Handbook for Science Education did address these topics, teacher research or teacher action research was mentioned only briefly in chapters about qualitative research, science teacher education, and grassroots equity initiatives (Fraser & Tobin, 1998).
This lack of attention to science teacher research might reflect the relatively late entry of science teachers into the teacher researcher movement. Teacher research, which dates back to the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, initially investigated teaching and schooling in ways that cut across disciplinary boundaries, rather than with specific subject matter lenses. The re-emergence of the teacher research movement in the 1980s, however, was spearheaded by teacher inquiry groups focused on the literacy curriculum, especially in the area of writing (Atwell, 1987; Bissex & Bullock, 1987; Mohr, 1987; Myers, 1985; Wells, 1994). Investigations around issues of social justice and social change also played a prominent role (Beyer, 1988; Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988; Stenhouse, 1983). More recently the teacher researcher movement has gained momentum in other subject matter areas, including science.
In this chapter I describe the status of teacher research in science education, examine the advantages and pitfalls of science teacher research, and consider possibilities for the role of science teacher research in the future. In particular, how might science teacher research contribute to the professional development of teachers and the development of a knowledge base for science teaching and learning?
In the U.S. context, this is a particularly interesting moment in time to examine the contributions and potentials of science teacher research. On the one hand, the science education community, as well as the education community more broadly, is driven by content standards (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1993; National Research Council [NRC], 1996) and standardized tests. Federal funding through the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) is dependent on evidence from standardized tests that students are meeting high content standards and requires that federal grantees use their funds on “evidence-based” teaching strategies. NCLB guidelines define large-scale, randomized controlled trials as the kind of educational research that provides such rigorous evidence (U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, 2003). Thus, like the students, the field of educational research is challenged to reach new standards. By definition, teacher research, where teachers examine issues in their own classrooms, does not meet the standard of large-scale randomized trials. What is the role for teacher research in this climate?
Although the standards and testing movement as well as the debate about what counts as evidence in educational research (Burkhardt & Schoenfeld, 2003; Feuer, Towne, & Shavelson, 2002) seem to minimize or ignore the importance of the teacher research movement, there are at least two bodies of current educational research that suggest an important role for science teacher research. Research about teacher learning and research about the relationship between research and practice both point to the importance of teacher-conducted studies, especially studies of teaching about particular subject matter (e.g., science) content.
First, the research on teacher learning suggests that teacher research is likely an effective professional development activity for teachers. There is an increased recognition of the importance of teacher learning across a career span as well as a growing consensus about the kinds of professional development activities that best support such teacher learning. Although more studies examining the impact of professional development programs on teachers’ science teaching practice and on their students’ learning are needed (Kennedy, 1998), there is evidence that effective professional development activities (a) engage teachers actively in collaborative, long-term problem-based inquiries, (b) treat content as central and intertwined with pedagogical issues, (c) enable teachers to see these issues as embedded in real classroom contexts, and (d) focus on the content and curriculum teachers will be teaching (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Carpenter, Fennema, Peterson, Chiang, & Loef, 1989; Cobb et al., 1991; Cohen & Barnes, 1993; Cohen & Hill, 1998; Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 1999; Elmore, 2002; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001; Kennedy, 1998; Lewis & Tsuchida, 1997, 1998; Loucks-Horsley, Love, Stiles, Mundry, & Hewson, 2003; National Staff Development Council, 2001; Shimahara, 1998; Steiner, 1999; Stigler & Hiebert, 1999; Takemura & Shimizu, 1993; Whitehurst, 2002; Yoshida, 1999; Zeichner, Klehr, & Caro-Bruce, 2000). These features of effective professional development (see also Chapter 38, this volume) point to the need for ongoing, collaborative, and content-specific inquiry into practice. Most of the science teacher research studies reviewed in this chapter involved teachers who were engaged in these types of activities— analyzing their practice in terms of specific content learning goals and in collaboration with other teacher researchers.
Second, there continues to be a gap between research knowledge and science teaching practice. Science teacher research might help close this gap. Advocates of action research “claim that action research can lead to praxis, a position in which theory and practice are dialectically related” (Goodnough, 2003, p. 60) and that through action research the theory-practice gap can be bridged (Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Grundy, 1987). For example, although the traditional university-based research community has built a large body of knowledge about students’ ways of thinking about specific science topics and phenomena, there is still much to be learned about how to best utilize that knowledge in teaching (Berry & Milroy, 2002; K. J. Roth, 2002). This is one example of a type of research that teachers are uniquely situated to explore. In order to understand what is possible in terms of student learning, the science education community can benefit from teachers’ investigations into their attempts to give students’ ideas a prominent role in teaching about specific content ideas and phenomena. In this way, teacher research can play an important role in contributing to the knowledge base in science education and in making links between the worlds of practice and research.
These two bodies of research suggest two important but different roles for science teacher research: to support teacher learning and professional growth, and to contribute to the research knowledge base about science teaching and learning. Much of the early work in action research or teacher research focused on its value as a strategy for teacher professional development. However, at least as early as Dewey, there was also the idea that teacher research could provide more than an avenue of professional development for the teacher involved in the research. In addition, it could contribute knowledge to the education community. To what extent has science teacher research played these two different roles?
I have organized this review into the following sections:
1. Part One: Definitions and Historical Context
2. Part Two: Science Teacher Research Supports Teacher Learning
3. Part Three: Science Teacher Research Produces Knowledge
4. Part Four: Issues in Science Teacher Research
In Part One, I provide a background context including definitions and descriptions of different types of teacher research and highlights of the history of the science teacher research movement. In Part Two, I describe examples of science teacher research, starting with teacher research conducted as part of preservice and inser-vice teacher education or professional development programs, where the focus is on the role of teacher research in supporting science teacher learning and professional growth. I consider the impact of these programs on preservice and inservice teacher learning. In Part Three, I consider the contributions of science teacher research to the knowledge base for science teaching. Examples of published teacher research studies are described and categorized to characterize the kinds of issues science teachers are investigating, the kinds of methodologies they are using, and the kinds of knowledge they are generating. In what ways do these studies contribute knowledge of interest to the larger science education community? In Part Four, I turn my attention to three important issues in teacher research: the benefits and pitfalls of teacher research, the criteria for quality in teacher research, and new directions in science teacher research: What role will science teacher research play in a standards and high-stakes testing environment? What new directions look promising? How might teacher research be both better nurtured and better studied? How can teacher research become more integral in building knowledge for science teaching?
PART ONE: DEFINITIONS AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Definition of Teacher Research
Teacher research, in its many forms, shares with other forms of research a goal of understanding educational practice. However, teacher research is distinct from other forms of educational research in its emphasis on “changing practice as a result of study and changing practice to better understand it” (Zeichner & Noffke, 2001, p. 306). This emphasis on change and improvement of practice plays out in different ways in different forms of teacher research, with teachers entering into teacher research for a variety of purposes—to know more about how students learn, to understand a particular aspect of one's teaching practice, to improve a particular aspect of one's teaching, to try out a new teaching approach, to become a more reflective practitioner, to document successful teaching approaches, and so forth (Fischer, 1996; Zeichner, 1997).
Teacher research is defined in this chapter using the definition provided by Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1993, 1999) in their seminal works about the teacher research movement in North America in the last two decades. They defined teacher research in the broadest possible sense to encompass all forms of practitioner inquiry that involve “systematic, intentional inquiry by teachers about their own school and classroom work” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993, pp. 23–24). Included in this definition are inquiries that are referred to as action research, practitioner inquiry, teacher inquiry, first-person research, and so forth. It does not include reflection on one's own educational practice or being thoughtful about one's work unless that reflection is intentional and systematic.
The teacher research studies reviewed in this chapter share an additional feature: the teacher research was done with the intention of being shared in some way. The work was shared both locally with a group of collaborators in a teacher inquiry group or class, and more widely through presentations at professional conferences or teacher research festivals and through publication in a variety of professional formats. Thus, all of the studies reviewed in this chapter were made available for public scrutiny. This is consistent with Stenhouse's (1975) definition of research as “systematic critical inquiry made public.”
Teacher research comes in many forms, but all forms focus on issues of teaching practice. Teacher research is distinguished from other forms of research in the deliberate fusing of the work of teaching and the work of inquiry (Ball, 2000): “What most clearly distinguishes first-person inquiry from other approaches to the study of teaching and learning is that it deliberately uses the position of the teacher to ground questions, structure analysis, and represent interpretation” (Ball, 2000, p. 365).
Shafer (2000) described three forms of teacher research placed on a continuum from reflective practice to action research to qualitative inquiry (teacher research). This continuum reflects the historical development of these forms of teacher research, with each successive form incorporating features of the previous one while adding new features.
Reflective practice is most closely tied to the ongoing work of teaching and does not require any special research plan or design. The goal is to heighten awareness and deliberation about teaching (Abell & Bryan, 1997; G. Erickson & MacKinnon, 1991; Grimmett & Erickson, 1988; Schön, 1983, 1988). To be considered as teacher research by Cochran-Smith and Lytle's (1993) definition, reflective practice must have some intentional element. Teacher narratives written after a process of reflection on teaching represent teacher research where the intentional element arose after the teaching act.
Action research is more planned and, as its name suggests, has traditionally had a goal of improving practice (Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Loucks-Horsley et al., 2003; Reason, 2001). Teachers identify a problem of practice that they want to understand and address, develop a method to study the problem, collect data to inform the problem, and analyze the data to generate ideas for improving practice. The learning from the research is documented and shared. In some settings, action research is seen as a cycle, with results informing changes in practice and the generation of new questions to investigate (Corey, 1953; Loucks-Horsley et al.). However, in practice, action research studies are often carried out as stand-alone studies, using a more linear set of steps from question to results (Taba & Noel, 1957; Zeichner & Noffke, 2001). Most proponents of action research encourage a collaborative process in order to help individual practitioners develop inquiry and reflection skills (Miller, 1990; Reason & Bradbury, 2002).
Action research projects have been used as central activities within science professional development programs delivered by universities and other providers outside of school districts (Colorado College Integrated Science Teacher Enhancement Project, 2004; Continuous Assessment in Science Project, WestEd, 2005; Project to Enhance Effective Learning, Baird & Northfield, 1992; Baird & Mitchell, 1986; Florida State University and Dade County Public Schools, Sweeny & Tobin, 2000). However, action research projects are also initiated and supported by schools and school districts (Love, 2002; Zeichner et al., 2000).
Some action research takes on a critical, activist stance that has goals of bringing about a more just and humane society and understanding social forces so that practitioners can gain access to processes for change and overcome oppressive situations (Carr & Kemmis, 1986). Participatory action research is a variant of action research that is intended to reclaim the common person's knowledge and wisdom by involving them in the action research process (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2000). This form of research has occurred in developing countries as well as Europe, Australia, and North America (Fals-Borda 1997; Park, Brydon-Miller, Hall, & Jackson, 1993; Rosas, 1997). In science education, Barton's work as a science teacher and researcher collaborating with parents and community members in an after-school science program in a homeless shelter in New York City fits the description of participatory action research (Barton, 2003; Barton, Johnson, & the students in Ms. Johnson's Grade 8 science classes, 2002).
Teacher research emerged as distinct from action research in the 1980s, and, according to Zeichner and Noffke (2001), teacher research differs from action research in at least four ways. First, teacher research does not have the “action” emphasis of action research; understanding practice and documenting knowledge held by expert teachers are valid goals of teacher research that do not necessitate change in practice. Second, teacher research incorporates more qualitative methods than was typical of action research prior to the 1980s. Thus, teacher research includes case studies and conceptual research, such as the teacher essays by Karen Gallas (Cochran- Smith & Lytle, 1993; Gallas, 1995, 1997). Third, and reflective of the qualitative research methodology, a teacher researcher's questions change and evolve during the inquiry process. Thus, the path from question to data to interpretations is not as linear and prescribed as in traditional action research projects. And finally, the teacher research movement included a new focus on the value of teacher-generated knowledge as having unique contributions to make to the field of educational research because of its insider status (C. W. Anderson, Butts, Lett, Mansdoerfer, & Raisch, 1995; G. Anderson, Herr, & Nihlen, 1994; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993; Northfield, 1996). Thus, teacher research is as much about empowering teachers and making teacher voices a part of knowledge generation efforts as it is about teacher professional development and improving the practice of individual teacher researchers.
Lesson study, a process originating in Japan where teacher groups develop, teach, analyze, revise, and publish lesson plans, is a special type of teacher research focusing on collaborative analysis of practice (Fernandez & Yoshida, 2004; Lewis & Tsuchida 1997, 1998). In the United States, lesson study groups with a science teaching focus are a recent development (Hedman, 2003). For the purposes of this review, lesson study groups as well as study groups that meet to analyze artifacts of practice (student work, lesson videos) are considered as “first person” teacher research only if the teachers are intentionally studying their own lessons or artifacts of practice. This excludes teachers who participate in seminars or courses where they examine lessons and artifacts of practice from other teachers.
Teacher research takes place in the university setting as well as in P–12 schools. Two variants of teacher research carried out by university faculty have had a significant impact on the way educational research is defined in academia. The first is what Ball names “researcher teacher” (Ball, 2000). In this form of teacher research, university-based academics trained in research conduct research on their own teaching in P–12 school settings. The pioneering researcher-teacher work of Magdalene Lampert and Deborah Ball in elementary school mathematics classrooms stimulated a series of such studies in mathematics education (Chazen, 2000; Heaton, 2000; Lampert & Ball, 1998). In science education, university-based researchers such as Sandi Abell, Elaine Howes, Jim Minstrell, Jeff Northfield, Margery Osborne, Kathleen Roth, Wolf-Michael Roth, and David Wong have studied their own P–12 science teaching practice (Abell, 2000; Abell, Anderson, & Chezem, 2000; Howes, 2002; Loughran & Northfield, 1996; Osborne, 1993; Rosaen & Roth, 2001; K. J. Roth, 1993, 1994, 2000, 2002; W.-M. Roth & Boyd, 1999; W.-M. Roth & Tobin, 2004; Wong, 1995).
University professors also engage in research on their university-level teaching. Such self-study research has been growing in acceptance as a valid form of scholarship, especially among teacher educators, at colleges and universities. In the field of science education, Abell, Martini, and George (2001), Bianchini and Solomon (2003), Duckworth (1987), Feldman (1995), Loughran and Russell (1997), Munby (1996), Northfield (1998), Russell (1997), Smith (2001), and van Zee (1998a, 1998b, 2000) provide examples of such self-study research.
Whereas Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1990, 1993, 1999) considered teacher educators doing self-study on their own teaching as teacher researchers, I focus in this chapter on P–12 science teacher research in all of its various forms. (John Loughran discusses examples of university teachers’ self-study in Chapter 34, this volume).
Historical Context
Excellent reviews of the literature regarding the history of the action research and teacher research movements can be found in a chapter written by Mary Olson (1990) and in Zeichner and Noffke's (2001) chapter in the Handbook of Research on Teaching. Articles by Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1990, 1999), Hall, Campbell, and Miech (1997), and Huberman (1996) also contribute to the story of the history of teacher research. In this section, I focus on the extension of teacher research from an early focus in the areas of literacy education and equity issues into the subject matter areas of mathematics and science.
Prior to the 1990s, teacher research in the United States focused mainly on the literacy and writing curricula or on issues of social justice in schooling. During the late 1980s and 1990s, teacher research began to move into other areas of educational interest. Of particular interest to science educators was the development of a movement toward subject matter investigations by teacher researchers. In the late 1980s Magdalene Lampert and Deborah Ball taught elementary school mathematics each day as part of their teaching load at Michigan State University. In the early 1990s, Lampert and Ball received funding to document their elementary school mathematics teaching over the course of a year. The products from this research played an important role in making concrete the potential contributions of subject-matter-focused teacher research. The products included descriptions of their analyses of mathematics teaching dilemmas (Ball, 1993; Lampert, 1990, 2001; Lampert & Ball, 1998), as well as videotapes of lessons and associated lesson artifacts (student work, teacher logs, etc.). These multimedia products captured the interest of researchers, teacher educators, teachers, as well as mathematicians and suggested the power of new technologies to enhance the impact and reach of teacher research studies. This work also inspired teacher research doctoral dissertations in mathematics (Heaton, 2000), writing (Lensmire, 1997), and science (Osborne, 1993).
The 1980s also marked some pioneering efforts in science teacher research. During the early part of the decade, Jim Minstrell, a high school physics teacher, initiated a productive line of research in his own classroom. Influenced by his mentor, Arnold Arons at the University of Washington, and by his participation in the development of the Project Physics curriculum and in the Project for Assessing Conceptual Development, Jim began to study his students’ learning and his own teaching. Over the years, he was successful in getting research grant money to release himself from some of his teaching responsibilities to allow time for more in-depth research activities, using analysis of audio- and videotaped lessons and student interviews to uncover student misconceptions and develop methods for helping students develop conceptual understanding of physics concepts. The insights he gained about his students’ thinking and learning, and the results of his efforts to design, implement, and study teaching strategies that would better help students develop deep understandings of science content, had a tremendous impact on the science education community. His teacher research work was well received both in the world of science teachers (Minstrell, 1982b, 1983) and in the world of academic research (Minstrell, 1984, 1989). In fact, although Minstrell retired from the classroom in 1993 (to focus full time on research and development projects), videotapes of his teaching still provide useful sources of data that inform teaching practice and influence the policymaking world. For example, Schoenfeld's development of a “theory of teaching-in-context” was based, in part, on a close analysis of Minstrell's teaching practice (Schoenfeld, 1998). In addition, Minstrell's teacher researcher work was highlighted as an example of research on effective teaching in the widely cited National Research Council book, How People Learn (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000).
Influenced by the teacher research work of Jim Minstrell, Deborah Ball, and Magdalene Lampert, I began my own line of teacher research in the late 1980s. After finishing my doctorate in science education in 1985, I was eager to return to my classroom roots to find out what might be possible if I focused my teaching practice on students’ thinking and learning. The knowledge I brought from my doctoral studies and my dissertation study convinced me that students had the potential to develop much deeper understandings of science than science teaching was typically tapping. During the 1988–1989 school year, I taught science and social studies to 29 fifth graders and traced their thinking and understanding of science content and the nature of science across the school year. The experience transformed my science teaching practice, my thinking about the teacher role, and my vision of research on science teaching and led to a line of teacher research in elementary school classrooms throughout the 1990s (Hazelwood & Roth, 1992; Rosaen & Roth, 1995; K. J. Roth, 1993, 1994, 1996, 2000, 2002; K. J. Roth et al., 1992). I was particularly interested in the usefulness of the videotapes that I had collected for research purposes, so I also explored the usefulness of creating video products from my work (K. J. Roth, 1998).
The teacher research and action research movements became more active and visible in the science education community during the 1990s when some teacher education, master's degree, and teacher professional development programs began to require teachers to conduct inquiries into their practice. Multiple events are likely to have contributed to this movement.
For example, such requirements came at a time when both research on science teaching and learning and the development of standards for science teaching at state and national levels had made clear the complexity of teaching science effectively (AAAS, 1993; Mintzes, Wandersee, & Novak, 1998; NRC, 1996; West & Pines, 1985). Research on students’ personal experiences and ideas about specific phenomena and topics in the science curriculum suggested that teachers needed more than knowledge about the science content and generic science teaching strategies. In addition, they needed knowledge about students’ ways of thinking about key ideas in the science curriculum and pedagogical strategies for addressing students’ personal theories and supporting them in learning about specific science ideas (C. W. Anderson & Smith, 1987; Driver, 1989; Driver, Osoko, Leach, Mortimer, & Scott, 1994; Hewson, Beeth, & Thorley, 1998; Hewson & Hewson, 1984; Hollon, Anderson, & Roth, 1991; Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982). Shulman (1987) named this type of knowledge “pedagogical content knowledge”—knowledge of teaching strategies that are specific to key ideas within the curriculum rather than generic science teaching strategies. For example, a teacher needs to know specific strategies to support students in changing and deepening their personally constructed ideas about how light helps you see, why coats keep you warm, how plants get their food, and the source of water that appears on the outside of cold drink containers. According to Loucks-Horsley et al. (2003), “To succeed in such a complex environment, teachers need opportunities to develop their pedagogical content knowledge through critical reflection on their own and others’ classroom practice” (p. 41).
In addition, this was a period when research documented the limitations of pre-service science teacher education programs (Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1985, 1989; Howey & Zimpher, 1989; Rosaen, Roth, & Lanier, 1988), science curriculum materials (C. W. Anderson & Smith, 1987; Eichinger & Roth, 1991; Kesidou & Roseman, 2002; K. J. Roth, Anderson, & Smith, 1987), and the traditional “one-shot” workshop approach to teacher professional development in preparing effective science teachers (Loucks-Horsley, 1996; Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, & Stiles, 1998). At this time, many researchers were also convinced that research had some compelling ideas to inform science teaching but that, despite the apparent usefulness of the research, the research-to-practice gap was not narrowing (C. W. Anderson & Smith, 1987; Pekarek, Krockover, & Shepardson, 1996; Penick, 1986). In addition, studies of teaching practice revealed how little science teaching reflected the kinds of teaching recommended by research (K. J. Roth et al., 2005; SALISH I Project, 1997; Simmons et al., 1999; Weiss, Pasley, Smith, Banilower, & Heck, 2003).
The professional development school movement that started in the early 1990s also contributed to a view of teaching as inquiry by supporting collaborative inquiries among K–12 school-based teachers and university-based researchers and teacher educators (Holmes Group, 1990). As a result of these collaborations, more teachers in these sites (and the preservice teachers working with them) became involved in carrying out classroom research, making presentations at conferences, and participating in the publication process (K. J. Roth et al., 1992).
In response to one or more of these trends, as well as the growth of teacher research in other subject matter areas (especially literacy), preservice and inservice programs for teachers sought to develop reflective science teachers who could make research-based decisions to support their efforts to help students meet the new science standards developed at state and national levels. These program requirements acknowledged the complexity of teaching science for understanding for all students and the limits of existing teacher education programs, professional development programs, and curriculum materials in supporting such teaching.
Another event that stimulated interest in teacher inquiry was the release of the first TIMSS Video Study (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999), which brought attention to the unique Japanese lesson study approach to teacher professional development. In the United States, this led to a growing interest in using or adapting the Japanese lesson study model to support teacher inquiries into some of their practice (Fernandez, Chokshi, Cannon, & Yoshida, in press; Fernandez & Yoshida, 2004; Lewis, 2002; Lewis & Tsuchida, 1997, 1998). In the area of science, the statewide California Science Project incorporated lesson study activities into some of their professional development programs (see http://csmp.ucop.edu/csp/resources/lessonstudy.html).
One of the results of these various science teacher research efforts was modest but increased attendance of K–12 practitioners at research conferences such as the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST). This challenged the NARST research community and other organizations to acknowledge the lack of teacher voices in science education research. Although a teacher research special interest group had been established in the American Educational Research Association in 1989, it was not until 2000 that a similar interest group was established at NARST. That same year, NARST began an annual practice of including a teacher researcher reception at the annual meeting.
Another indication of the increased interest in science teacher research was the December 2000 Conference on Teacher Research in Science and Mathematics, funded by the Spencer Foundation, the National Science Foundation, and the U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Thirty-five teacher researchers, including newcomers as well as experienced teachers from established groups such as the Brookline Teacher Research Group, the ChecheKonnen Collaborative, the Fairfax County Teacher Researcher Group, the Philadelphia Teachers’ Learning Cooperative, and the Prospect Archives and Center for Education and Research, joined five university-based researchers to explore children's classroom talk and work in science and mathematics (Ballenger & Rosebery, 2003). One reason given for the focus on science and mathematics was the growing number of teacher researchers expressing an interest in moving outside of the language and literacy area to examine science and mathematics learning issues.
PART TWO : SCIENCE TEACHER RESEARCH SUPPORTS TEACHER LEARNING
After a brief review of different perspectives about the role of science teacher research in supporting teacher learning, I describe in this section examples of science teacher research efforts embedded in teacher education and teacher professional development programs. I focus first on science teacher research inquiries that occurred within preservice teacher education programs. I next consider programs for inser-vice teachers, starting with descriptions of science teacher research within degreeawarding programs and then turning to science teacher research within non-degreeawarding professional development programs.
Perspectives on Teacher Research and Teacher Learning
In 1996, Pekarek et al. stated that the idea of teachers as researchers “ought to be incorporated in science teacher preparation and professional development programs” (p. 112). Others agree that teacher research can play an important role in enhancing science teacher learning, and a variety of rationales are used to support this view. Research on teacher reflection, for example, makes a strong case that reflection is a central and critical part of a professional educator's responsibility, requiring the teacher's consideration of many factors in deciding how to act in a particular situation (Abell & Bryan, 1997; Grimmett & Erickson, 1988; Schön, 1983). The importance of the role of reflection in teaching is underscored by the growing body of research knowledge about how difficult and complex it is to teach science (and other subject matters) so that all students, including those at risk for academic failure, develop meaningful understandings of central concepts and scientific ways of knowing (C. W. Anderson & Roth, 1989; Mintzes et al., 1998). There is wide agreement in the science education community that science teaching cannot be reduced to a set of techniques and knowledge that can be quickly given to teachers (NRC, 1996). Thus the complexity of the teaching environment in the twenty-first century suggests that learning to teach science is a lifelong undertaking and that teachers need to learn how to learn from experience (Akerson & McDuffie, 2002; NRC). As Stenhouse suggested in 1975, and Duckworth elaborated in 1987, teaching should be viewed as a form of inquiry, experimentation, or research.
There are other arguments supporting the case for teacher research as a way to improve science teacher learning. For example, van Zee (1998a) suggested that teachers who are attempting to put new reform approaches to science teaching into their practice may receive better support from administrators, parents, and colleagues if they have clearly articulated and studied their intentions and practices. Others point to the motivational value of learning in the context of practice. By studying their own practice rather than simply reading research about other teachers’ practices, teachers are more likely to be engaged in their learning and personal growth (Hewson, Tabachnick, Zeichner, Blomker, et al., 1999). Still others suggest that inquiry into practice provides an opportunity for teachers to experience the kinds of inquiry that characterize science itself (Akerson & McDuffie, 2002; McGoey & Ross, 1999). McGoey and Ross argued that, just as science is the construction of new knowledge representations and new understandings, so science teaching should involve construction of new knowledge about teaching science. “In order for science teachers to demonstrate authentic inquiry, we must be engaged in authentic research ourselves. Researching our practice is a natural fit” (McGoey & Ross, p. 118).
Because of the potential for teacher research to enhance teacher learning, various forms of teacher research have been incorporated into preservice and inservice science teacher education and professional development programs. Examples of these efforts and their findings are presented next, beginning with preservice teacher education efforts, and then we turn to inservice teacher professional development programs.
Preservice Programs and Science Teacher Research
Both teachers and teacher educators suggest that preservice teacher education programs should include teacher research experiences. In an editorial in the Journal of Research on Science Teaching, McGoey and Ross (1999), two high school science teachers working with student teachers, argued that “the way to deal with the research-practice gap is to engage new teachers in action research from the very beginning of their own practice” (p. 118). Teacher educators Abell and Bryan (1997) concurred, challenging teacher educators to “coach prospective teachers to purposefully and systematically inquire into their own practice, encouraging them to make such inquiry a habit that will become increasingly valuable throughout their careers” (p. 136). Loughran (2002) noted that the possibilities for preservice teacher learning could be enhanced through effective reflective practice. Kyle, Linn, Bitner, Mitchner, and Perry (1991) went so far as to claim that “the process of recognizing the role of teachers-as-researchers should permeate every teacher education course” (p. 416).
Examples of efforts to carry out and study this view of preservice science teacher education are summarized in Table 39.1. The examples differ in their target preservice teacher population (elementary versus secondary, post-baccalaureate versus undergraduate) and in the length of the teacher research projects. In some programs teacher research activities were embedded in single courses, while in others teacher research projects developed across both course and student teaching experiences. The programs also differed in the extent to which they studied their preservice teachers’ learning from the experience. In many cases, such examinations of preservice teacher learning were limited to student self-report; in contrast, the study of teacher learning in the University of Wisconsin–Madison program was studied rigorously with the use of interviews and observations of preservice teachers. The results of these various efforts to integrate teacher research into preservice teacher education programs highlight the successes, challenges, and limitations of our knowledge about the relationship between teacher research and preservice teacher learning.
TABLE 39.1
Teacher as Researcher in Preservice Science Teacher Education Programs
Impact on Preservice Teacher Learning
All of the preservice programs described in Table 39.1 were studied by the faculty members who developed and taught them. Thus, all of these researchers were conducting self-study in one way or another. Both van Zee and Tabachnick and Zeichner made this self-study aspect of their work explicit in their writing. What do we learn from this set of self-studies in science teacher education? What evidence do they provide that teacher research can enhance preservice teacher learning about science teaching? Although these studies represent only a subset of similar studies, they provide important insights about what we know and do not know about teacher research and preservice teacher learning.
First of all, these studies provide evidence that teacher research conducted during a student teaching experience is possible and that preservice teachers can find it valuable. Many preservice teachers and teacher educators wonder whether a novice teacher can simultaneously learn how to teach and learn how to conduct research on teaching: It is not a trivial matter to be able to act in the classroom and to step outside of that action to observe and analyze. However, in these programs preservice teachers were able to do this at some level and to value the process.
Second, the studies showed some impact on preservice teachers’ awareness, beliefs, and knowledge. Most commonly, preservice teachers became much more aware of and oriented to students’ ideas and ways of thinking. In some cases, they became aware of conflicts between their beliefs and visions and their teaching practice.
Finally, although some preservice teachers reported changes in their teaching as a result of the action research (e.g., Featherstone, Munby, & Russell, 1997), there is little evidence that the teacher research components of these programs had much impact on the teaching practices of the preservice teachers. This is not surprising, given the short time frame of the programs (one course to two years) and the many demands placed on the preservice teachers, especially during their student teaching experiences, which typically lasted 8–12 weeks. It is not realistic to expect that preservice teachers’ conceptions of science teaching will undergo significant change in such a short time period. In addition to developing a new concept of teaching, they are also challenged to translate that vision into action without many models of what the new practice might look like. However, this finding suggests possibilities for future exploration, including longer-term studies of preservice teachers and the development of more robust teacher research experiences within teacher education programs.
The reports of these programs also highlight the need to collect more in-depth data about the development of preservice teachers’ knowledge about science teaching and the role that teacher research projects play in that learning process. Most of the studies reported here relied predominantly on end-of-program surveys filled out by the preservice teachers. To better understand the role of teacher research in the teacher learning process, we need studies that trace the unfolding impact of these activities on preservice teachers’ thinking and actions. In addition, follow-up studies that examine these prospective teachers’ views toward teacher research during their initial years of teaching would provide important data about impact.
Inservice Programs and Science Teacher Research
Degree-awarding inservice programs. There are many degreeawarding programs for practicing teachers that now include teacher research or action research as a core component. Teacher research is built into these programs primarily because of its potential to support teacher learning that will lead to changes in teaching practice rather than contribute to the science education community's knowledge base. Many of these programs are not targeted only to science teachers, whereas others are designed specifically to support teacher research in science classrooms. Examples of three programs are summarized in Table 39.2.
Non-degree-awarding inservice programs. Teacher research is also a component of a variety of professional development activities that occur outside of degreeawarding programs. Some of these activities are local, state, or federally funded professional development programs (Hedman, 2003; Reardon & Saul, 1996; Saul, 1993, 2002), research collaborations initiated and supported by university faculty (Goodnough, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c; Lehrer & Schauble 2002), school district initiatives or school-university collaborations, university-sponsored programs, and more grassroots teacher research study groups. In some of these programs, teacher research is more than an opportunity to support teacher learning; it is also a vehicle for bringing teachers’ voices into the larger science education research community. Thus, these programs and teacher groups vary in their relative emphasis on the goals of teacher professional development or the generation of knowledge for the wider science education community. Examples of these programs are described Table 39.3.
Impact on inservice teacher learning. As these examples suggest, science teachers are becoming involved in teacher research, and some in teacher research programs that have continued over time. These indicators and others, such as teachers’ participation in conference presentations and publications of their work, suggest that teachers find value in teacher research. In fact, most of the programs presented in Table 39.3 claim positive outcomes of teacher research on inservice teacher learning. Most are careful, however, to limit the claims to changes in teacher beliefs, knowledge, and analytical abilities, rather than to changes in teachers’ practice and their students’ learning. Tabachnick and Zeichner (1999) referred to “a voluminous literature representing work in several countries (that) has consistently reported that teachers who engage in action research generally become more aware of their own practices, of the gaps between their beliefs and their practices, and of what their pupils are thinking, feeling, and learning” (p. 310).
TABLE 39.2
Teacher as Researcher in Inservice, Degreeawarding Programs
TABLE 39.3
Teacher as Researcher in Inservice, Non-degreeawarding Programs
They also pointed to studies that show that action research sharpens teachers’ reasoning capabilities and supports the development of the disposition to monitor one's own practice (Biott, 1983; Feldman 1994b, 1996; Noffke & Zeichner, 1987; Ruddick 1985; Zeichner 1993).
Akerson and McDuffie (2002) found that several elementary teachers and teacher educators improved their science teaching with a reflective teacher approach (Akerson, Abd-El-Khalick, & Lederman, 2000; Dickinson, Burns, Hagen, & Locker, 1997). Other researchers demonstrated the importance of action or teacher research in developing teachers’ abilities to reflect on and improve their own science teaching (Chandler, 1999; Fueyo & Neves, 1995; Scott 1994; Stanulis & Jeffers, 1995; van Zee, 1998a, 1998b; Winograd & Evans, 1995). In his work with physics teachers, Feldman (1996) found that action research played an important role in helping teachers identify and reflect on their underlying assumptions about science and teaching, but that this growth in knowledge and understanding led to only modest changes in teaching practice, which he described as “enhanced normal practice” (Feldman & Minstrell, 2000).
Regarding teacher research as a mode of professional development, teacher researchers often testify to the power of the research process in changing their way of thinking about their teaching practice and their students’ thinking and learning (Aladro & Suarez, 2000; Osler & Flack, 2002; Valverde, 2000). Despite the challenges, those who persist report positive learning outcomes: “As I reflect on my research, I see that I have learnt much more than I ever anticipated … There are many things that this first attempt at teacher research has taught me” (Boyle, 2002, p. 86).
Beyond teacher researchers’ self-reports, however, there is limited evidence— from either teacher research or larger-scale studies of teacher researcher learning— about the impact of teacher research on changes in teaching practice that result in improved student learning outcomes. Do teacher researchers use research findings to change and improve their practice, or do their findings simply confirm their expectations and justify their current practices? Does teacher research stimulate professional learning and growth and help teachers scrutinize their practice more rigorously (Kennedy, 1996a)? Or does teacher research lead to stagnation and even self-delusion as the status of research is used to justify and maintain current teaching practices (Hodgkinson, 1957, as cited in Zeichner & Noffke, 2001; Huberman, 1996)?
One of the few attempts to make teacher researchers the subjects of a research study was conducted by Kennedy (1996a). This teacher researcher learning study examined 78 teachers involved in conducting research in their own classrooms. Kennedy found that these first-time teacher researchers, whose participation came as a result of either a master's program requirement or a district-sponsored action research program, clearly believed that what they learned through the research process was important. Most mentioned positive emotional or intellectual benefits, and many expressed interest in doing another research project. However, most of the teachers also reported that their study validated the teaching approach under study rather than challenging it (“I did interactive writing with my students, and this reinforced to me that it needs to be part of the classroom curriculum” (p. 5)). Only a small fraction of the teachers reported that their research challenged them to revise their thinking about their teaching.
In another study, Kennedy (1998) examined professional development programs in science and mathematics that looked at program impact in terms of changes in teaching practice and student learning outcomes. She identified only four such studies in science, and none of these programs was organized around teacher research. Clearly, more research is needed to assess the impact of teacher research on science teaching and on student learning.
PART THREE: SCIENCE TEACHER RESEARCH PRODUCES KNOWLEDGE
What kind of knowledge is being produced by science teacher research? In what ways might this knowledge be of interest beyond the individual teacher researcher and her/his immediate collaborative group or school?
To address these questions, I reviewed 78 examples of science teacher research. In order to represent the broad range of teacher researchers, I included in this analysis all studies that I was able to access in print format, but limited my review to only one representative study from each teacher researcher. Many, but not all, of the selected studies were developed as part of programs summarized in Tables 39.1, 39.2, and 39.3, and are cited there. The studies were selected from a variety of sources, including research journals (American Educator, Educational Action Research, Journal for Teacher Research, Journal of Curriculum Studies, Journal of Research in Science Education, Teachers College Record, Teaching and Change), ERIC documents, books (Barton, 2003; Doris, 1991; Gallas, 1995; Howes, 2002; Loughran & Northfield, 1996), edited collections of teacher research (Atkinson & Fleer, 1995; Lehrer & Schauble, 2002; Loughran et al., 2002; McDonald & Gilmer, 1997; Minstrell & van Zee, 2000; Saul, 1993, 2002; Spiegel, Collins, & Lappert, 1995; Sweeney & Tobin, 2000), online publications (Networks: An Online Journal for Teacher Research), and teacher research web sites (e.g., Brookline Teacher Research Group, Cheche Konnen Center, CRESS Center at University of California–Davis, Fairfax County Public Schools, Highland Park High School, Language Minority Teacher Induction Program at George Mason University, Madison Metropolitan School District Classroom Action Research). Additional studies that I reviewed but did not list in Tables 39.1 through 39.3 include one of my own teacher research studies (K. J. Roth, 2002) and the following: Barnes, Hamilton, Hill, Sullivan, & Witcher (2003); Donoahue (2000); Elliot (1995); Genovese (2003); Hayton (1995); Irwin (1997); Jesson (1995); Joseph (2002); Lin (1998); McGlinchey (2002); Minstrell (1982a); Osborne (1997); Painter (1997); Pinkerton (1994); A. Roberts (1999); W.-M. Roth (2000); and Stahly, Krockover, and Shepardson (1999).
Of the 78 studies, 45 focused on elementary science teaching and 30 focused on secondary science teaching (13 at the middle school level and 17 at the high school level). The remaining three studies spanned multiple grade levels, including the college level.
Issues Addressed in the Science Teacher Research Studies
One way of describing the knowledge produced by these studies is to examine the issues addressed in the teacher inquiries. As shown in Table 39.4, 71 percent of the studies focused primarily on the use of particular science teaching strategies or approaches. These teacher researchers tried out teaching approaches recommended in the research literature or in national science education documents and considered their impact. For example, 24 percent of teachers explored their efforts to use inquiry approaches to science teaching or a “science workshop” approach where students are encouraged to ask questions and to act as scientists in investigating their questions. Twenty-nine percent of the studies explored language issues such as engaging students in science talks, using journal writing, and so forth. Within this group of studies, there was a particular interest in strategies to support English language learners.
TABLE 39.4
Issues Addressed in 78 Science Teacher Research Studies
| Issues Addressed | Percentage of Studies | |
| Use of particular teaching strategies | 71 | |
| Use of science inquiry strategies | 24 | |
Use of language-related strategies (journal writing, strategies for English language learners, science talks, trade books, etc.) |
29 | |
Other (assessment strategies, group work, multiple intelligences strategies, technology, outdoor environment) |
18 | |
Teaching and learning of a particular science concept or topic (sound, light and shadows, the moon, electricity, force and motion, plants and photosynthesis, water cycle, nutrition, rocks, particulate nature of matter) |
14 | |
| Equity issues in science teaching | 5 | |
Other (teacher researcher role, becoming a teacher researcher, dilemmas of science teaching, theoretical analyses) |
10 | |
Fourteen percent of the studies focused primarily on a particular topic or concept in the science curriculum with the goal of examining students’ activities and learning related to that topic. These studies described the teaching of a particular topic or idea and usually focused heavily on student thinking and learning: How were students making sense of this science content? These topic- or concept-focused studies used a variety of strategies to examine student thinking and learning, including student interviews and videotapes of focus students, but the majority of them examined students’ thinking and learning in the context of instruction, primarily through analysis of classroom talk and student work. Within this group, there was some (although limited) focus on analyzing what Ballenger and Rosebery (2003) refer to as “puzzling students.“
Only 5 percent of the reviewed studies looked directly at equity issues in science teaching. Ten percent of the studies were classified as “other.”
Data Types
What kinds of data did the science teacher researchers in these studies use? Table 39.5 summarizes the commonly used sources of data.
A common feature of the studies was at least some attention to student learning, thinking, and actions. However, the types and quality of evidence used to support claims about student learning varied widely. Most of the studies presented examples of students’ work to support evidence of student learning, but these examples were used in different ways, and some provided more insight into student thinking and learning than others. In many cases, the examples of student work were presented as exemplars, showing what is possible without addressing how other students or groups of students performed the same task. In a much smaller number of studies, teacher researchers presented student work illustrating “puzzling students”; these studies revealed students’ alternative ways of thinking about the science content rather than those intended by the teacher. Still other teacher researchers attempted to show a range of student work. This was sometimes accomplished by describing a particular assessment task and then reporting students’ scores on the task, usually reported as a percentage of correct answers rather than an analysis of the facets or features of students’ understandings and misunderstandings. Rarely did the studies present a sequence of student work to illustrate changes in student thinking over time.
TABLE 39.5
Types of Data Used in 78 Science Teacher Research Studies to Provide Evidence of Student Learning
| Types of Data | Percentage of Studies* |
| Student work | 56 |
| Transcripts of classroom talk | 28 |
| Student interviews | 25 |
| Teacher journal/logs | 25 |
| Videotapes | 12 |
| Pre-post measures of student learning | 12 |
| Quantitative measures—elementary teachers | 9 |
| Quantitative measures—secondary teachers | 32 |
Note: *Percentages do not sum to 100 percent because studies used more than one data type.
Other methods for providing evidence of student thinking and learning and the effectiveness of the teaching strategies were used less frequently. As with the use of student work, transcripts of classroom interactions were more often used to demonstrate exemplars of the quality of student thinking and questioning that is possible rather than to demonstrate student understanding of particular content, to explore student confusions and difficulties, or to raise dilemmas of teaching. Both student interviews and teacher journals/logs were used in 25 percent of the studies, but in many cases data from these sources were not presented in the published report.
Pre-post measures or other indicators of change in student thinking and learning over time were used in only 12 percent of the studies. These assessment strategies were usually given to all students in the class, rather than focusing on case studies of individual students (as might be expected, given teachers’ responsibility for teaching all students). The type of pre-post measures varied and ranged from yes/ no questions about students’ attitudes toward particular topics or aspects of doing science to standardized multiple-choice test questions to teacher-designed questions designed to assess student understanding, such as concept mapping tasks or application questions. Pre-post measures were not always written tasks; for example, one teacher researcher compared students’ discussion of the same question before and after a unit of instruction. Other data sources that might provide evidence of change in student thinking over time, such as case studies of individual students or student interviews across time, were evident in only a few of these studies.
Secondary teacher researchers were more likely than elementary teacher researchers to use quantitative measures (32 percent of students in secondary versus 9 percent of elementary school studies), to conduct surveys of their students, and to set up experimental comparisons of different conditions. Secondary teachers’ interaction with a larger number of students might explain their interest in more quantitative methods, and their work with multiple groups of students in a school day might create a more natural condition for comparing different teaching approaches.
Videotaping was used in only 12 percent of studies. This is a surprisingly low percentage, given the wide availability of this technology and its potential for enabling teachers to examine their own practice (Hiebert, Gallimore, & Stigler, 2002). This issue is revisited in the section on new directions for science teacher research.
Knowledge Contribution
What contributions might this group of 78 teacher researcher studies make to the larger science education community? What contributions do they make to teachers, to the research community, and to the knowledge base for science teaching?
As a group, the studies do not provide sufficient evidence of impact on student thinking, learning, and actions to use them to make any recommendations about effective science teaching. Larger-scale studies and closer analyses of changes in student learning over time are needed to make such claims. However, the studies do provide valuable insights into how science education research and reform recommendations are being implemented in classrooms, what makes such implementation challenging within real classrooms, teachers’ assessment of the value and usefulness of these recommendations, and what issues science teacher researchers are and are not studying.
For example, there are a considerable number of studies that examined teachers’ efforts to teach science with an inquiry orientation (e.g., Doris, 1991; Hayton, 1995; Iwasyk, 2000; Kurose, 2000; Kwan, 2000; Lay, 2000; Nissley, 2000; Pearce, 1993, 1999; Reardon, 2002; D. Roberts, 2000). Each of these studies provides a portrait of how such inquiry teaching was interpreted and implemented in one classroom. Descriptions of these teaching efforts give other teachers concrete and varying images of what inquiry science teaching might look like and how students might respond. The studies are for the most part inspirational, presenting captivating images of students engaged in scientific inquiry. Such images are necessary to help teachers translate the rhetoric of reform into a reality in the classroom. In this sense, teacher researchers are the pioneers, the ones who are willing to not only try new approaches in their science teaching, but to also make that effort visible for others. These pioneering inquiries provide valuable images for other teachers and provide important knowledge to the larger research community.
The research community can examine these studies to ascertain which features of inquiry teaching are being implemented and which are not and use this knowledge to develop future research agendas. Keys and Bryan (2001) reviewed many of the same studies reviewed for this chapter and used them (along with other studies) to develop a proposal for a science education research agenda that examines research on inquiry in diverse classrooms with a special focus on modes of inquiry-based instruction that are designed by teachers.
Another interesting finding from the review of these studies of science inquiry is the emphasis on addressing authentic student questions (studying a local oil spill, local traffic flow, family recycling bins, and so forth). In contrast, teacher researcher studies of inquiry science teaching less frequently looked at inquiry within the context of addressing the development of the canonical science knowledge that is the focus of many science standards, benchmarks, and state or local learning goals and objectives. Such an observation could be used to stimulate discussion and debate within the science education community about the possible need for more studies of inquiry teaching that include a focus on canonical knowledge development.
Science teacher researchers’ emphasis on student inquiry and relative inattention to the large body of research about students’ naive conceptions, alternative frameworks, or misconceptions also provides important knowledge for the science education research community. Is this an important gap to be addressed in future teacher research? Or is “conceptual change” science teaching, and the development of understandings of science canonical ideas viewed as incompatible with inquiry teaching? This is an important issue for the science education community that the teacher research studies place before us.
While teacher research does not lend itself to making quantitative claims and generalizations about student learning or about which strategy works better than another, teacher research does provide a rich context for exploring what's possible and what's difficult in teaching a given topic, concept, or inquiry skill. For example, a group of teachers in Wisconsin provided rich descriptions of their efforts to help first-through third-grade students learn how to organize and interpret data in various representations (Clement, 2002; Curtis, 2002; DiPerna, 2002; Gavin, 2002; Putz, 2002; Wainwright, 2002). These teachers were exploring new ground in terms of challenging young students to use rather sophisticated data organization and reasoning strategies. These teachers explored curricular territory that is usually reserved for much older students who are more able to think abstractly, and their efforts challenge our assumptions of what's possible for young students to understand.
Berry and Milroy's study (2002) of their efforts to use a conceptual change approach to the teaching of the particulate nature of matter to year 10 students in Australia provides important insights about “what's difficult” in implementing research-based, theoretical perspectives in the classroom. They successfully identified their students’ thinking that matter is continuous rather than particulate, but then struggled to figure out how to help students understand the scientific view of matter as particulate. They drew from the research literature to help identify the students’ conceptual difficulties, but found that the research literature was largely silent about how to help students reconcile their ideas with scientific concepts. As Berry wrote in her journal: “This is so frustrating! I can find probes of students’ conceptions all over the place [in the research literature] but there's nothing really that says what to do next!! Bits and pieces, nothing more” (Berry & Milroy, 2002, p. 200). Their efforts to develop a curriculum to address students’ naive ideas represent a first step in building the knowledge that they could not find. But their efforts also communicate the need to the larger research community that this kind of knowledge is needed by classroom teachers.
The results of this review of science teacher research in many ways parallel Dressman's (2000) review of 61 examples of classroom research published in Language Arts. He found that the most common teacher research genre was the “good practice narrative” in which teachers reported their largely successful efforts to instantiate theory into practice. The same can be said of the majority of the studies in this review. Science teacher researchers are creating interesting learning contexts where there is much to report about student thinking and learning that is exciting and holds promise for the future. But there is an underrepresentation of studies that examine problems, learning difficulties, and discontinuities between intended and actual learning outcomes.
Both Dressman (2000) and Ballenger and Rosebery (2003) challenged teacher researchers to reveal more of the factors that “give teaching and learning their texture, their contour, and all too often, their outcome” (Dressman, p. 57). Fecho and Allen (2003) agreed, suggesting that the teacher researcher should reveal, embrace, and interrogate dissonances within his or her practice. Ballenger and Rosebery emphasized the importance of scrutinizing moments of confusion and “puzzling students,” viewing this activity as the core of their teacher research practice. The idea is to delve into something that is confusing, perhaps unsuccessful, and to try to understand it better. This approach is at the core of the Brookline Teacher Research Group and the Cheche Konnen Center. This approach is evident in some of the published science teacher research, but it is the exception rather than the rule. For example, Judy Wild (2000) described how much difficulty her fourth-grade students had in understanding the basic idea of a complete electric circuit. She examines the discontinuities between students’ abilities to build circuits and their difficulties in predicting whether given circuits will allow a light bulb to light. Many teachers might assume that the successful building of a circuit represents evidence of understanding circuits, but Wild's examples challenge this assumption and encourage teachers to take a deeper look at student understanding. In another example, Margery Osborne (1997) considered the dilemmas she faced in addressing the needs of the group and the needs of the individual when using a constructivist approach in her first-grade science teaching.
PART FOUR: ISSUES IN SCIENCE TEACHER RESEARCH
Part Four addresses the benefits and pitfalls of science teacher research and the debate about criteria for judging quality of teacher research, and considers new directions for the future.
Benefits and Pitfalls of Science Teacher Research
Is teacher research an effective model for teacher learning and professional development? Can teacher research make valuable contributions to the knowledge base for science teaching? Clearly, more research is needed to understand the impact of teacher research on teacher learning, on teaching practice, and on knowledge development in the science education research community. Science teacher research is in its infancy, and there are many unanswered questions about its effectiveness in supporting teacher professional development and in contributing to the knowledge base for science teaching. Given this context, there is debate about the effectiveness and usefulness of science teacher research. Both teacher researchers and academic researchers point to a number of potential benefits and pitfalls of teacher research. Many of the benefits and pitfalls relate to the standards of quality of teacher research, which are further discussed in the next section.
Teacher Is Both Teacher and Researcher
Teacher research provides an insider view of teaching that is often invisible to outside observers (Ball, 2000; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993; Zeichner & Noffke, 2001). Approaches to research that use the personal view of the teacher as a resource offer the possibility of new insights that an outsider could not see and might not think to ask about. Only the teacher, for example, knows what she was thinking when a class discussion veered off in an unanticipated direction (see Abell & Roth, 1995). Only the teacher knows the kinds of thinking that went on during the planning process. Although an outsider can try to tap into this knowledge through interviews and other research strategies, it is difficult for an outsider to ask the right question at the right moment and to build the level of trust needed for the teacher to reveal critical information. “Teachers offer special insights into the knowledge-production process that those studying someone else's teaching are unable to provide” (Zeichner & Noffke, 2001, p. 299).
But it is difficult—and essential—that teacher researchers step outside their own assumptions and preconceptions and maintain a healthy skepticism about their observations of themselves and their students (Ball, 2000). Huberman (1996) and Hodgkinson (1957) questioned the ability of teachers to bracket their preconceptions and to “avoid distortions and self-delusion” (as cited in Zeichner & Noffke, 2001, p. 299). “Understanding events when one is a participant in them is excruciatingly difficult if not impossible” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999, p. 20; Huberman). Ball was more optimistic, but highlighted the challenge of this role: teacher researchers must remain open and curious, defending against the natural urge to defend against questions raised by others without silencing the interior voice that provides the unique and critical insights. Unless the insider perspective can be balanced by this outsider perspective, there is the danger that the research will become too personal, resulting in products that are useless and sometimes even embarrassing (Behar, 1996).
Research Questions
Teacher research can address questions that take advantage of the teacher's insider status and would be difficult for outsiders to pursue with as much insight (Ball, 2000). For example, the teacher researcher is uniquely positioned to examine her efforts to implement a new science teaching strategy. The teacher has unique access to knowledge about the full scope of the thinking and planning that took place before, during, and after her teaching and about how teaching with the new strategy was more or less difficult than strategies used in the past. In addition, the teacher has a special vantage point for understanding the variety of influences that contributed to her experience using the new teaching strategy: What role did curriculum materials play? Were interactions with colleagues important? What about professional development experiences? How did the students’ reactions to the new instructional approach influence her decision-making?
Ball (2000) suggested that teacher research focus on such questions where a first-person account can contribute to making visible knowledge that is less likely to be accessed by outsiders, and she cautioned teacher researchers to avoid questions that are best examined by outsiders. For example, teacher researchers sometimes ask questions that are best explored through in-depth case studies of individual students in their classrooms: How are mainstreamed special education students experiencing the inquiry science teaching in my classroom? Such questions require special observations and interviews with individual students, whereas the teachers’ responsibilities as teacher require her to attend to all students in the classroom. An outside observer would be better suited to carry out this kind of research. Similarly, teacher researchers sometimes develop questions designed to develop generalizations or comparisons that are difficult if not impossible to make within the classroom context, such as: Do students develop better understandings of the nature of science in an inquiry-oriented science classroom or in a conceptual change science classroom? While a middle school science teacher could set up such a comparison between two of his classes, it would be difficult for him to set up and maintain the two contrasting conditions, and the student learning results would not have the same weight as a larger-scale study. However, the teacher's knowledge about what it was like to implement the two different approaches would provide a valuable insider perspective that might not be revealed in a larger-scale study.
Research Context
The science teacher researcher has daily access to a rich data set about students, teaching, teacher thinking and planning, and student learning that provides unique opportunities for research. Unlike teacher researchers, researchers who watch other teachers rarely have access to the daily unfolding of instruction, and they can tap into teacher thinking and planning only on an occasional basis. This rich context enables the teacher researcher to examine classroom events with much more knowledge relevant to the situation than can an outside researcher. Thus, teacher research provides the opportunity to explore the many particulars of teaching and their interactions (Akerson & McDuffie, 2002; Ball, 2000).
The rich context can also be problematic, however. The environment is so dense with information and events that it may be difficult for the teacher researcher to focus the area of inquiry (Baird & Northfield, 1992; Northfield, 1996). Knowing too much about the particulars can make it difficult to see patterns and to make any kind of claims that might be of interest to the consumers of the research (Ball, 2000).
Collaboration
Those involved in teacher research commonly emphasize the importance and value of collaboration among teacher researchers, which challenges the prevailing norm of teaching as an isolated activity (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1990, 1999; Goodnough, 1991a; Northfield, 1996; Ovens, 2000; Zeichner & Noffke, 2001; Zeichner et al., 2000). The opportunity to work with other teacher researchers plays a central role in helping teachers make sense of the particulars of their own classroom, it provides insights into other teachers’ practices, and it can support teachers in learning to be more analytical about teaching by challenging their assumptions and preconceptions. Teacher researchers frequently comment on the valuable role collaboration played in their growth as a teacher and a teacher researcher (Berry & Milroy, 2002; Mohr et al., 2004).
Although collaboration certainly contributes to making teaching more visible, it is not always easy to establish norms of interaction that focus on analysis and criticism. Teachers have not been trained in research techniques, and they are not experienced in having evidence-based conversations about teaching. Scientific norms of skepticism, precision, and demands for evidence are not typically part of teachers’ professional interactions. The science teacher researcher community needs to support the development of collaborative norms that challenge teacher researchers’ analyses and lead to insights that will be more transformative for the teachers themselves and that will be of more interest to the larger science education community.
Teacher Voice, Professionalism, and Satisfaction
Since the 1980s, increasing numbers of academic researchers have called for the valuing of teachers as producers of knowledge (Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993; F. Erickson, 1986; Richardson, 1994; Russell & Munby, 1994). They have argued that teachers’ knowledge has too often been dismissed by the research community as anecdotal and that teacher voices should be more prominent in educational research. Teachers should gain more faith in their own experience and knowledge instead of relying primarily on outside authority. Self-reports from teacher researchers suggest that they do gain professional satisfaction and a new respect for their own knowledge and ability to learn and grow. But they also acknowledge the demands and frustrations of conducting research and teaching. Both teaching and research are time-consuming and intellectually challenging endeavors, and only a few teachers find the wherewithal to make both activities a part of their professional lives. Although some teacher researchers get financial support from grants or school districts to provide time to work on research-related activities (e.g., writing, attending conferences), most teacher researcher groups meet during after-school hours. They spend these hours learning to carry out research tasks that academic researchers acquired as part of doctoral studies. Is it realistic to expect that teachers can learn to do meaningful research within this structure, and is it fair to teachers to ask them to take on this new role without any accommodations to their regular teaching load?
Teacher Learning
As noted earlier in this chapter, one of the major goals of teacher research is to stimulate and deepen teacher learning and to promote changes in teaching practice. However, there is also the danger that teacher research can be used to justify the status quo (Ball, 2000; Hodgkinson, 1957, as cited in Zeichner & Noffke, 2001; Kennedy, 1996a; Zeichner & Noffke, 2001). In fact, Kennedy's review of 78 teacher researcher studies found that most of these teacher researchers found evidence to support their current practice; challenging current practice or raising problematic situations was an uncommon feature of these studies. Teacher researchers must be wary about their claims; the fact that something is stated from a first-person perspective and experience does not necessarily make it true (Ball, 2000).
Usefulness of Knowledge for Teachers
As noted in the historical context section of Part One, there has been much concern over the years about the failure of educational research to affect teaching practice. Teacher research, with its focus on the particulars of teaching described in teachers’ voices, offers the promise of providing research knowledge that will be useful to teachers. But are teachers any more likely to read each others’ research than they are to read academic research? Is the research too specific to the situation to be of interest to other teachers? A study by Kennedy found that teachers did not always rate teacher research studies as more meaningful to them than more traditional academic research. They found that it was the persuasiveness and relevance of the research and whether or not it influenced their thinking that determined its value to them, rather than whether the source was an academic researcher or a teacher researcher (Kennedy, 1996b, 1997).
Quality of Knowledge Produced
One of the biggest areas of debate concerning teacher research is the quality of the research knowledge that is produced. Some argue that teacher research is a new genre of research that will improve the knowledge base for science teaching by building on academic research and linking it more closely to practice. Teacher research builds the bridge linking academic research and practice. Teacher research, in this view, can extend academic research knowledge by exploring it in the context of real classrooms. For example, teacher researchers can examine specific teaching strategies that have been recommended based on preliminary research, studying questions such as: What is possible in terms of student learning when you use these strategies? What makes these teaching strategies/recommendations difficult to enact? What is it like for a teacher to try to change his teaching practice in these ways? What discrepancies emerge between what was intended and what occurs?
Skeptics question whether knowledge produced by teacher researchers meets the criteria of quality that will enable it to be integrated with academic research (Hodgkinson, 1957, as cited in Zeichner & Noffke, 2001; Huberman, 1996). In this sense, teacher research is also viewed as a new genre of research, but it is separate and not equal to traditional academic research because of limitations in its standards of validity, reliability, evidence, claims, and generalizability. These debates about quality are examined in the next section.
The Debate about Criteria for Quality
The history of action research and teacher research includes much debate about the standards for quality of such research: Are there special criteria needed for judging the quality of teacher research, or should the same standards used in academic research be used? And who should set the standards of quality for teacher research?
In its early days, educational action research in the U.S. context was judged by traditional, positivistic research standards, resulting in severe criticisms of the quality of the research. Hodgkinson (1957) described teacher research as “hobby games for little engineers” and asserted that “research is no place for an amateur” (as cited in Zeichner & Noffke, 2001, p. 299). Despite the efforts of Stephen Corey (1953) and others to defend action research as a legitimate form of inquiry, action research was ridiculed from the perspective of the conventional research standards of the day, and it largely disappeared from the U.S. literature until the late 1970s (Zeichner & Noffke, 2001).
The development of qualitative research standards in education, and the growing recognition of these standards as respectable and legitimate, contributed to the reemergence of the teacher research movement in the United States in the late 1970s and 1980s (Zeichner & Noffke, 2001). Since then, various researchers have attempted to define standards for quality in teacher research, drawing largely from standards developed for qualitative research. Although there is wide agreement that the qualitative standards are useful in teacher research, many researchers assert that traditional standards of reliability, validity, and generalizability are not appropriate for judging the quality of teacher research, especially given the wide variety of forms and purposes of teacher research (Altrichter, 1993; G. Anderson et al., 1994; Dadds, 1995; Feldman 1994a; Jacobson, 1998; Lomax, 1994; Munby, 1995; Stevenson, 1996; Zeichner & Noffke). Instead, they argue for new standards of quality that are designed specifically for teacher research. Others argue that teacher research should be held to the same standards as other types of research.
In the latter group, Huberman (1996) asserts that teacher researchers should be held to the same classic standards that are applied to all qualitative research, including “evidence, consistency, freedom from obvious bias and perceptions of the people involved” (p. 128) and minimally reliable methods to minimize “delusion and distortion” (p. 132). Eisenhart and Howe (1992) and Eisenhart and Borko (1993) propose a master set of criteria for all forms of classroom research, including both qualitative and quantitative teacher research.
Those who argue for special standards of quality for teacher research highlight issues unique to teacher research. After reviewing arguments made by a variety of researchers on this issue, I selected five proposed standards for teacher research that seem to me to address issues that are specific to teacher research: (a) insider-outsider stance, (b) trustworthiness, (c) collaboration and public dialogue, (d) complexity of context and triangulation, and (e) impact on teacher/student learning. I believe that careful attention to these criteria would improve the quality of the science teacher research reviewed in this chapter.
Insider-Outsider Stance
This criterion is at the heart of teacher research and is the feature of teacher research that most sets it apart from other forms of research. It is also the most challenging criterion to practice effectively as a teacher researcher.
Because the teacher researcher role involves self-study, many emphasize standards of quality related to the teacher researcher's stance toward his or her study. Ball (2000) describes the need for teacher researchers to step back and view their own work as teachers as matters for scrutiny while also being caught up inside the day-to-day actions of teaching. They must assume a stance of inquiry and curiosity, instead of defending one's actions against questions that others might raise. The teacher researcher must value and listen to the insider voice while also adopting an outsider perspective: “This kind of research requires both an unusual concentration on, and use of, self, combined with an almost unnatural suspension of the personal” (Ball, pp. 392–393). Northfield (1996) described the need for the teacher researcher to reframe classroom situations, to suspend judgment rather than rely on preconceptions, and to regard their assumptions as problematic. O'Dea (1994) drew from the field of literary criticism to describe the need for teacher researchers to be authentic, true to themselves, and self-critical. Lather (1993), working from a feminist perspective, called for the disclosure and self-scrutiny of the teacher researcher's preconceptions and experiences.
I believe that the quality of science teacher research will improve as the teacher research community develops guidelines and other supports to help teachers adopt this challenging insider-outsider stance. Strategies, guiding questions, or routines can be developed to challenge and support teacher researchers as they try to be aware of both perspectives and to examine each from a critical stance.
Trustworthiness: Evidence-based Reasoning and Worthwhile Questions
At the center of the debate about quality in teacher research are the issues of validity and generalizability. In defining standards in qualitative research more generally, Lincoln and Guba (1985) and F. Erickson (1986) asserted that conventional notions of validity and generalizability cannot be applied to research that does not fall within the positivist experimental design paradigm. Lincoln and Guba suggested abandonment of the idea of validity, to be replaced by a notion of trustworthiness. Zeichner and Noffke (2001) nominated the term trustworthiness as a replacement for validity in the context of teacher research. They argued that the term trustworthiness “better captures the need for practitioner research to justify its claims to know in terms of the relationships among knowers and knowledges” (pp. 314–315). A standard of trustworthiness challenges researchers to develop arguments that persuade the reader that their findings are worthy of attention.
I find the term trustworthiness interesting, because it captures both the importance of having “trustworthy” data and the importance of exploring questions that are “worthy” of investigation and of interest beyond the individual teacher researcher's classroom. In constructing a list of criteria to guide teacher researcher work, I would prefer to highlight these different meanings by creating two separate categories. The new categories might be named “evidence-based reasoning” and “worthwhile questions.” The “evidence-based reasoning” criterion points to the need for justifying claims and developing arguments based on specific pieces of evidence that can come in a variety of forms. Under the category of “worthwhile questions,” I would emphasize that in addition to being of interest to the teacher researcher, research questions in high-quality teacher research are also linked to the work of others and/or to theoretical perspectives. I believe that if teacher researchers learn about and connect with the work of others, the quality of their research will improve. In addition, this process will help them in developing the outsider stance described in the previous criterion.
Collaboration and Public Dialogue
Collaboration is important and critical to the success of many different kinds of research projects, and I would argue that it is an essential criterion of quality in teacher research. Partly because of the difficulties involved in analyzing a situation in which one is a participant and taking an outsider stance (Huberman 1996), collaboration is a crucial element in teacher research (G. Anderson et al., 1994; Northfield, 1996; Stevenson, 1996). It provides teacher researchers access to outside perspectives and knowledge and challenges their assumptions. Because teachers are typically isolated in their classrooms and are not trained in research, collaboration is necessary to gain research skills and to connect their personal research with others’ situations and concerns. Anderson et al. defined a standard of dialogic validity that assesses the degree to which the research promotes reflective dialogue among the participants in the research. Related to this but coming from a feminist perspective, Lather (1993) and Dadds (1995) described the quality of relationships among the participants as a key criterion of quality research. Stevenson emphasized the importance of making results public and engaging in dialogue about them beyond the research group.
In my experiences with teacher research, I have observed that high-quality teacher researcher collaboration is difficult to achieve. And yet this difficulty is not made visible in most of the science teacher research accounts reviewed for this chapter. Collaboration that challenges teacher researchers to reveal their own practices and to consider outside perspectives is often uncomfortable in school cultures where teachers do not say things that might appear critical or “challenging” of someone else's practice. It is easier to collaborate in supportive ways than in challenging ways. And yet, I would argue that the quality and usefulness of science teacher research will not develop and flourish unless teacher research groups can develop strategies and norms for challenging as well as supporting each other.
Because so many of the studies reviewed in this chapter were made possible because of collaborations initiated by academic researchers, I am convinced that collaborations between teacher researchers and academic researchers provide one excellent avenue for developing norms of “challenging” collaboration. But this kind of collaboration can also be precarious. Academic researchers have the experience and expertise to bring the language of argumentation and “challenge” to the table, but they can easily do this in a way that is alienating to some teacher researchers. On the other hand, academic researchers can be so fearful of alienating teacher researchers that they refrain from bringing new norms of interaction to the group, and an important opportunity for growth within the group is lost. Discussing differences in norms openly and frequently in teacher researcher groups is necessary, and the development of materials, guidelines, and research stories that help teacher researchers and academic researchers learn how to communicate in both challenging and supportive ways will support progress in this arena.
Complexity of Context and Triangulation
A key criterion of quality for teacher research is the examination of the complexity of the classroom context and the use of triangulation to make sense of this complexity (Feldman & Minstrell, 2000; Northfield, 1996; Stevenson, 1996). This criterion is important for at least two reasons. First, a unique strength of teacher research is the deep and broad insider knowledge held by the teacher researcher; good teacher research uses the richness of this knowledge to provide insights unavailable to an outside observer (Ball, 2000). Triangulation, which involves collecting data from several different views of the same situation, enables teacher researchers to mine the wealth of this complexity. Along with collaboration, such triangulation also supports the teacher researcher in looking at classroom events from multiple perspectives, not just the teacher perspective.
The complexity of context criterion is also important in addressing issues of external validity, providing readers with sufficient detail to understand similarities and differences with his or her own context. Teacher researchers need to provide enough detail to convince others that “what they have learned is true in the particular case of their teaching in their classrooms” (Feldman & Minstrell, 2000, p. 6).
Many of the science teacher research studies reviewed for this chapter did not reveal the complexities of the situation through such methods as proposing alternative explanations, considering various sources of data, or examining conflicting evidence. In part, this might be explained by the expectations of traditional educational research publications and expectations of readers/audiences who are looking for a nice, clean story told in a certain number of pages/minutes. In contrast, teacher researchers need to figure out how to tell a “messy” (complex) story in a certain number of pages/minutes and to have the story be compelling and meaningful to audiences. This is a challenge, but a worthwhile one to take on: How can a report of teacher research reveal the complexities and yet still reveal a clear story that is meaningful to the teacher and to others?
Impact on Teacher/Student Learning
A criterion that is at the core of action research and of many other forms of teacher research is the degree to which the research has been transformative, leading to a change in the researcher's understandings and/or practice (Stevenson, 1996). This was described by Lather (1991) and G. Anderson et al. (1994) as catalytic validity— to what extent does the research energize the teacher researcher to better understand and transform the teaching situation? Dadds (1995) identified improvements in teacher researchers’ practice and teacher researchers’ professional learning and growth as two different categories for judging the quality of teacher research.
Although some teacher researchers specifically focus on documenting and analyzing their practice rather than improving it, I would argue that high-quality inquiries and analyses should also prompt the teacher researcher to develop new understandings that have implications for his or her teaching. In addition, I propose that the best quality teacher research transforms teaching practice in ways that improve student learning. This is a high bar to hold up for quality teacher research, but what is the value of teacher understanding and learning if it has no implications for student growth? Good teacher research, therefore, should ultimately transform the teacher researcher's knowledge and understanding, the teacher researcher's teaching practice, and his or her students’ learning.
Who Decides?
Many of those engaged in the debate about standards for quality in teacher research, including myself, are university-based academic researchers. Although teacher researchers themselves discuss and raise issues of quality (e.g., Threatt et al., 1994), publications in print about these issues are dominated by academic researcher voices. Zeichner and Noffke (2001) and Evans, Stubbs, Frechette, Neely, and Warner (1987) criticized this situation as a silencing of the voices of teachers: “P–12 educators need to assume a central role in formulating and applying standards for assessing the quality of their own work” (p. 322). The field would be well served by public discussion of these issues across teacher researcher groups.
New Directions for Science Teacher Research in an Era of Standards and High-Stakes Testing
Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) described the future of teacher research in the standards movement era to be uncertain. They noted that pressures for accountability are likely to make research-based whole-school improvement models more widespread, with the voices of outside authoritative experts dominating over teachers’ voices in educational research. Since Cochran-Smith and Lytle wrote of this concern in 1999, the high-stakes testing environment in the United States has only intensified with the federal No Child Left Behind legislation (NCLB, 2001). The NCLB legislation not only mandates extensive testing; it also explicitly states that teachers should implement teaching practices that are shown to be effective by high-quality research. The “gold standard” of high-quality research is defined as large-scale, randomized controlled trials.
Will the teacher researcher movement continue to grow and flourish in this environment? Teacher researchers will have to wrestle with both the accountability demands and the demands of teaching and research. Can they continue their inquiries and collaborations in ways that will be supported and valued in their schools? Can the changes they are making in their teaching as a result of their inquiries be linked to the kinds of improvement in their students’ learning that will show up on high-stakes tests?
What Cochran-Smith and Lytle said in 1999 about the standards movement is even more valid with regard to the NCLB environment: “These and many other challenges undoubtedly will influence the direction, and perhaps the continued existence, of the teacher research movement in the years to come” (p. 22). They pointed to the history of teacher research as a compelling reason for optimism, noting how valuable teacher research is and has been to many teachers, teacher educators, and researchers.
However, science teacher research as a movement and a force in the research and policy communities is in its infancy. Cochran-Smith and Lytle's experiences with teacher research are in the literacy curriculum area, where there is a longer history of teacher research and a much larger body of published materials compared with science teacher research. Among science teacher researchers, there is less history and less momentum to sustain. Science teacher research is at a stage where it needs to be supported and nurtured in order to understand its potential contributions to teachers’ professional growth and to the research knowledge base about science teaching and learning. What new directions might provide such support?
Studies about Teacher Research
It may be that larger-scale studies conducted by academics about teacher research and its impact can contribute to the future flourishing of science teacher research. From the professional development perspective, for example, studies that examine the impact of teacher research on teacher learning and on teachers’ practice could provide additional evidence to support the value of teacher research. Do teachers change their teaching practice as a result of their inquiries? Do these changes result in improvements in student learning? Two teacher researchers, McGoey and Ross (1999), pointed to a need for such formal studies in their guest editorial in the Journal for Research in Science Teaching: “We suspect that research-based initiatives in education reform will not thrive outside a community of professionals capable of sustaining an action research ethos, but we are unable to conduct formal studies. An answer to this question could significantly reduce wasted effort” (p. 119). They argued that such research knowledge would support the efforts of teacher researchers in communicating with their peers, school administrators, and parents.
Teacher Research Syntheses
From the production of knowledge perspective, syntheses of science teacher research might make teachers’ knowledge more accessible to other teacher researchers, to teachers who are not researchers, and to academic researchers. Research reviews or meta-analyses that synthesize science teacher research studies about particular aspects of science teaching might help make science teacher research more accessible as well as contribute to addressing the generalizability issue in teacher research. This might nurture the science teacher research movement by making more visible the value of the knowledge generated by teacher researchers.
Searchable Online Libraries
The current body of science teacher research is not easy to access and search. Articles are published most frequently on web sites and in edited book volumes, which are usually organized as a collection of articles by teacher researchers within a given group rather than by topic, grade level, or issue. The production of an easily searchable, centralized teacher research online library that is organized not just by key words and authors, but also by grade level, curriculum materials, learning goals, and so forth, is another strategy that could make teacher research more accessible and valuable to both teachers and researchers. For example, a teacher who is preparing to teach a unit or conduct an inquiry about electricity could access other teachers’ studies that took place in the context of teaching this topic. Or a teacher who is struggling to implement language activities to support English-language learners could access research studies relevant to this issue. Research studies about patterns of use of such a library could assess the usefulness of the knowledge that is being generated by teacher researchers and contribute to establishing the value of teacher research.
A National/International Science Teacher Research Community
But such tasks are not likely to be taken on by an individual teacher researcher or teacher research group. It is an effort that needs to be undertaken by organized professional communities or by collaborative teams of academic researchers and teacher researchers. The teacher research special-interest group at NARST might be a place to begin building such collaborations.
One debate within teacher researcher groups is the extent to which teacher researchers and more traditional academic researchers should partner. There is a fear among some teacher researchers that academic voices might drown out teacher voices and force teacher research to adopt the same norms and criteria of quality as academic research (Threatt et al., 1994). However, much of the science teacher research to date has been initiated through research grants or master's programs developed by academic researchers. Thus, there is active support for teacher research among academic researchers. This group of academic researchers can play an important role in the further development of science teacher research, and their opportunities to collaborate and meet with teacher researchers might help nurture the science teacher research movement.
Funding Opportunities
Funding opportunities to support teacher research and to promote communications across science teacher research groups would also help nurture science teacher research. However, the teacher research movement faces a paradox in the funding situation. In order to make the case for the importance of teacher research, the teacher research community needs opportunities to grow and develop and especially to communicate across groups about standards for high quality in teacher research. Funding is needed to support such communication of science teacher research groups with each other and with teacher research groups with longer histories in other subject matter areas. But funding will be difficult to obtain until funding sources are convinced that science teacher research is likely to result in improved science teaching and learning.
New Modes of Representation of Teacher Research
To date, science teacher research has been shared with the science education community through traditional publication and presentation routes, with a special emphasis on online publication. We do not yet know the extent to which such representations of teacher research provide useful knowledge to other teachers and researchers. Dadds (1995) suggested that a larger variety of representations of teacher research might better reflect the needs and contexts of different teacher researchers. She argued for broadening what counts as legitimate forms of representing teacher research: “If we continue to limit our view of ‘text’ to the more conventional academic research genre … we may ignore the appropriateness of other forms of communication, written or spoken, that may have greater potential for shaping and communicating meaning, for putting the action in action research, for acting as catalysts for institutional action and change” (Dadds, 1995, p. 132).
Criteria for judging quality need to take into account the possibility of such alternative forms of representation, which might include educational actions, drama, photography, film, and poetry (Lomax & Parker, 1995; McNiff, Lomaz, & White-head, 1996).
There has been little experimentation with alternative modes of representation of teacher research, but one mode that seems particularly suited to communicating about teaching is video (Hiebert et al., 2002; Stigler, Gallimore, & Hiebert, 2000). Surprisingly, only 12 percent of the science teacher research studies reviewed for this chapter reported that they used video methodology in collecting data. One reason for its limited use might be the risks involved in making video images of teachers and students publicly available. In this digital age, this risk is even more important to address, and procedures and policies to minimize such risks to teachers and students need to be carefully developed and rigorously implemented.
Perhaps another reason for the limited use of video in these studies is a narrow vision of how such video might be used by teacher researchers. If video is considered only as a data collection strategy that must then be painstakingly analyzed, the use of video might seem too time consuming to be useful in the teacher research genre. But video could also be viewed as an alternative publication strategy that might better suit many teachers than writing research articles.
Videocases could be developed by teachers to be shared with other teachers, with preservice teachers, and with academic researchers. Videocases of teaching could be shared at any stage in the inquiry process, especially if they are presented in an online, digital format that allows for time-linked commentary by the teacher researcher. The teacher researcher could make the videocase available through an indexed and searchable online, digital video library. Other teachers, teacher researchers, and academic researchers could be invited to view the videocase and add their own comments, which could also be time-linked to specific places in the video. In this way, the “product” of a teacher's inquiry is actually still part of his or her inquiry process, providing outsider perspectives that can challenge and deepen the teacher researcher's study.
The video artifact from the inquiry process could also be useful as a teaching tool in preservice and inservice teacher education programs as well as a research data source for additional studies carried out by other investigators. For example, if the many studies about inquiry science teaching reviewed in this chapter had made teaching video available online, it would be feasible to build on the work of each individual teacher researcher by analyzing and comparing various instantiations of inquiry teaching.
The use of such video products over time could help the science education community develop a shared language for talking about science teaching that would be closely matched to visual images of what the ideas might look like in action in the classroom. This would be a tremendous contribution of teacher research to the knowledge base for science teaching.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Science teacher research holds much promise for enhancing science teacher learning within preservice and inservice teacher education programs and teacher researcher inquiry groups. It has been used in a variety of teacher education and teacher professional development programs as a strategy for developing reflective, inquiring science teachers. Although there is evidence that science teacher research contributes to teachers’ professional dispositions, learning, and growth, there is less evidence that it affects science teachers’ practice in ways that result in improved student learning. Further research is needed to examine the impact of teacher research on science teachers’ practice.
Science teacher research also holds promise for making important contributions to the knowledge base for science teaching. Although there are many pitfalls in science teacher research, it does offer a unique insider perspective that might help bridge the gap between traditional academic research and science teaching practice. But science teacher research is in its infancy as a movement within the science education research community. There are debates about the standards of quality for science teacher research, and it is unclear whether and how science teacher research will become widely accessible and usable within the science education community. Supports of various kinds, including funding and tools such as online, searchable text and video libraries, and collaborations between teacher researchers and academic researchers are needed to nurture the movement in order to explore its potential: “The partnership between researchers and practitioners is in its infancy… . We look forward to a day when collaboration between the academy and the classroom teacher is a commonplace of professional science teaching” (McGoey and Ross, 1999, p. 120).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thanks to Deborah Trumbull, who reviewed this chapter.
REFERENCES
Abell, S. K. (2000). From professor to colleague: Creating a professional identity as collaborator in elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 548–562.
Abell, S. K, Anderson, G., & Chezem, J. (2000). Science as argument and explanation: Exploring concepts of sound in third grade. In J. Minstrell & E. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 65–79). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Abell, S. K., & Bryan, L. A. (1997). Reconceptualizing the elementary science methods course using a reflection orientation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8, 153–166.
Abell, S. K., Martini, M., & George, M. D. (2001). “That's what scientists have to do”: Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science during a moon investigation. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 1095–1109.
Abell, S. K., & Roth, M. (1995). Reflections on a fifth grade life science lesson: Making sense of children's understanding of scientific models. International Journal of Science Education, 17, 59–74.
Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of a reflective activity-based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 3, 295–317.
Akerson, V. L., & McDuffie, A. R. (2002, January). The elementary science teacher as researcher. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers of Science, Charlotte, NC.
Akins, A., & Akerson, V. L. (2002). Connecting science, social studies, and language arts: An interdisciplinary approach. Educational Action Research, 10, 479–497.
Aladro, L, & Suarez, O. (2000). How do LEP students acquire and develop the language of science? In A.E. Sweeney & K. Tobin (Eds.), Language, discourse, and learning in science: Improving professional practice through action research (pp. 105–116). Tallahassee, FL: SouthEastern Regional Vision for Education (SERVE).
Altrichter, H. (1993). The concept of quality in action research: Giving practitioners a voice in educational research. In M. Schratz (Ed.), Qualitative voices in educational research (pp. 40–55). London: Falmer Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, C., Butts, J., Lett, P., Mansdoerfer, S., & Raisch, M. (1995). Voices in unison: Teacher research and collaboration. Teacher Research, 2(2), 117–135.
Anderson, C. W., & Roth, K. J. (1989). Teaching for meaningful and self-regulated learning of science. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching (Vol. 1, pp. 265–309). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Anderson, C. W., & Smith, E. L. (1987). Teaching science. In V. Richardson-Koehler (Ed.), Educators’ handbook: A research perspective (pp. 84–111). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Anderson, G., Herr, K, & Nihlen, A. (1994). Studying your own school: An educator's guide to qualitative practitioner research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Atkinson, S., & Fleer, M. (1995). Science with reason. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Atwell, N. (1987). In the middle: Writing, reading, and learning with adolescents. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook-Heinemann.
Bagley, R. (2000). Does teaching science to LEP students through cooperative learning and hands-on activities increase language proficiency? In A. E. Sweeney & K. Tobin (Eds.), Language, discourse, and learning in science: Improving professional practice through action research (pp. 45–52). Tallahassee, FL: SouthEastern Regional Vision for Education (SERVE).
Baird, J. R., & Mitchell, I. J. (1986). Improving the quality of teaching and learning: An Australian case study—the PEEL Project. Melbourne, Australia: Monash University Printery.
Baird, J. R., & Northfield, J. R. (1992). Learning from the PEEL experience. Melbourne, Australia: Monash University Printery.
Ball, D. L. (1993). Halves, pieces, and twoths: Constructing representational contexts in teaching fractions. In T. Carpenter, E. Fennema, & T. Romberg (Eds.), Rational numbers: An integration of research (pp. 157–196). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ball, D. L. (2000). Working on the inside: Using one's own practice as a site for studying teaching and learning. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 365–402). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In G. Sykes & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–332). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ballenger, C., & Rosebery, A. (2003). What counts as teacher research?: Continuing the conversation. Teachers College Record, 105, 297–314.
Barnes, B., Hamilton, M., Hill, C., Sullivan, C., & Witcher, P. (2002). Science investigations: Hands on … minds on. Fairfax, VA: Fairfax County Public Schools.
Barton, A. C. (2003). Teaching science for social justice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Barton, A. C., Johnson, V., & The students in Ms. Johnson's Grade 8 science classes. (2002). Truncating agency: Peer review and participatory research. Research in Science Education, 32, 191–214.
Behar, R. (1996). The vulnerable observer: Anthropology that breaks your heart. Boston: Beacon Press.
Berry, A., & Milroy, P. (2002). Changes that matter. In J. Loughran, I. Mitchell, & J. Mitchell (Eds.), Learning from teacher research (pp. 196–221). New York: Teachers College Press.
Beyer, L. (1988). Knowing and acting: Inquiry ideology and educational studies. London: Falmer Press.
Bianchini, J. A., & Solomon, E. M. (2003). Constructing views of science tied to issues of equity and diversity: A study of beginning science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 53–76.
Biott, C. (1983). The foundations of classroom action research in initial teacher training. Journal of Education for Teaching, 9, 152–160.
Bissex, G., & Bullock, R. (1987). Seeing ourselves: Case study research by teachers of writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Blackwood, D. (1993). Connecting language and science assessment. In W. Saul (Ed.), Science workshop: A whole language approach (pp. 95–118). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Bohrman, M. L., & Akerson, V. L. (2001). A teacher's reflections on her actions to improve her female students’ self-efficacy toward science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 13, 41–45.
Boyle, L. (2002). Disasters and metacognition in the SOSE classroom. In J. Loughran, I. Mitchell, & J. Mitchell (Eds.), Learning from teacher research (pp. 74–88). New York: Teachers College Press.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Britton, D. (2000). Facilitating conceptual change in science: A case study. In A. E. Sweeney & K. Tobin (Eds.), Language, discourse, and learning in science: Improving professional practice through action research (pp. 21–31). Tallahassee, FL: SouthEastern Regional Vision for Education (SERVE).
Burkhardt, H., & Schoenfeld, A. H. (2003). Improving educational research: Toward a more useful, more influential, and better-funded enterprise. Educational Researcher, 32(9), 3–14.
Carlton, W. (1996). Grades that have meaning! In P. Castori (Ed.), Windows on our classrooms. Retrieved February 26, 2004, from http://education.ucdavis.edu/cress/projects/satellites/teachresearch/papers/carlton.html
Caro-Bruce, C., & Zeichner, K. (1998). The nature and impact of an action research professional development program in one urban school district: Final Report. Retrieved December 15, 2004, from http://www.madison.k12.wi.us/sod/car/carspencerreport.html
Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C. P., & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge of children's mathematical thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 499–453.
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. London: Falmer Press.
Chandler, K. (1999). Working in her own context: A case study of one teacher researcher. Language Arts, 77, 27–33.
Chazen, D. (2000). Beyond formulas in mathematics and teaching: Dynamics of the high school algebra classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Clement, J. (2002). Graphing. In R. Lehrer & L. Schauble (Eds.), Investigating real data in the classroom (pp. 63–74). New York: Teachers College Press.
Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E., Nicholls, J., Wheatley, G., Trigatti, B., et al. (1991). Assessment of a problem-centered second-grade mathematics project. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 13–29.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1990). Research on teaching and teacher research: The issues that divide. Educational Researcher, 19(2), 2–11.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (Eds.). (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). The teacher researcher movement: A decade later. Educational Researcher, 28(7), 15–25.
Cohen, D. K., & Barnes, C. A. (1993). Pedagogy and policy. In D. K. Cohen, M. W. McLaughlin, & J. E. Talbert (Eds.), Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice (pp. 207–239). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (1998). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California (RR-39). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Colorado College Integrated Science Teacher Enhancement Project. (2004). Integrated science teacher enhancement project (ISCEP). Retrieved February 26, 2004, from http://equinox.unr.edu/homepage/crowther/iscep.html
Continuous Assessment in Science Project, WestEd. (2005). Supporting high quality science teaching, learning, and continuous assessment. Retrieved February 27, 2005, from http://www.wested.org/cs/we/view/serv/18
Corey, S. M. (1953). Action research to improve school practices. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cucchiarelli, D. (2001). The use of inquiry-based education in the science classroom. Retrieved December 15, 2004, from http://gse.gmu.edu/research/lmtip/arp/vol2.htm
Curtis, C. (2002). What's typical: A study of the distributions of items in recycling bins. In R. Lehrer & L. Schauble (Eds.), Investigating real data in the classroom (pp. 49–53). New York: Teachers College Press.
Dadds, M. (1995). Passionate enquiry and school development. London: Falmer Press.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (Eds.). (1999). Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
DeSouze-Wyatt, B. (2002). A multi-strategy approach to increase ESOL student performance on the high-stakes Virginia end-of-course biology standards of learning assessment. Retrieved December 12, 2004, from http://gse.gmu.edu/research/lmtip/arp/vol2.htm
Dickinson, V. L., Burns, J., Hagen, E. R., & Locker, K. M. (1997). Becoming better primary science teachers: A description of our journey. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 8, 295–311.
Dieckman, D. (2002a). Reading as scientists. In W. Saul (Ed.), Science workshop: Reading, writing, thinking like a scientist (pp. 74–85). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Dieckman, D. (2002b). Inquiring into assessment. In W. Saul (Ed.), Science workshop: Reading, writing, thinking like a scientist (pp. 101–114). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
DiPerna, E. (2002). Data models of ourselves: Body self-portrait project. In R. Lehrer & L. Schauble (Eds.), Investigating real data in the classroom (pp. 81–98). New York: Teachers College Press.
DiSchino, M. (1998). Why do bees sting and why do they die afterward? In A. Rosebery & B. Warren (Eds.), Boats, balloons, and classroom video: Science teaching as inquiry (pp. 109–133). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Donoahue, Z. (2003). Science teaching and learning: Teachers and children plan together. Networks: An Online Journal for Teacher Research, 6(1). Retrieved November 15, 2004, from http://education.ucsc.edu/faculty/gwells/networks/
Doris, E. (1991). Doing what scientists do: Children learn to investigate their world. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Dougherty, L. A. (2000). Peer tutoring: Can it have an affect on science in the content area? Retrieved December 13, 2004, from http://gse.gmu.edu/research/lmtip/arp/vol2.htm
Dressman, M. (2000). Theory into practice? Reading against the grain of good practice narratives. Language Arts, 78(1), 50–59.
Driver, R. (1989). Students’ conceptions and the learning of science. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 481–490.
Driver, R., Osoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.
Duckworth, E. (1987). “The having of wonderful ideas” and other essays on teaching and learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
Eichinger, D., & Roth, K. J. (1991). Analysis of an elementary science curriculum: Bouncing around or connectedness? (Research Series No. 32). East Lansing: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching, Center for the Learning and Teaching of Elementary Subjects.
Eisenhart, M., & Borko, H. (1993). Designing classroom research: Themes, issues, and struggles. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Eisenhart, M., & Howe, K. (1992). Validity in qualitative research. In M. LeCompte, W. Milroy, & J. Preissie (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 643–680). San Diego: Academic Press.
Elliot, J. (1995). Exploring telephones. In S. Atkinson & M. Fleer (Eds.), Science with reason (pp. 82– 89). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for professional development in education. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119–161). New York: Macmillan.
Erickson, G., & MacKinnon, A. M. (1991). Seeing classrooms in new ways: On becoming a science teacher. In D. A. Schön (Ed.), The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice (pp. 15–36). New York: Teachers College Press.
Evans, C., Stubbs, M., Frechette, P., Neely, C., & Warner, J. (1987). Educational practitioners: Absent voices in the building of educational theory (Working Paper no. 170). Wellesley, MA: Center for Research on Women.
Fals-Borda, O. (1997). Participatory action research in Colombia: Some personal feelings. In R. McTaggart (Ed.), Participatory action research: International contexts and consequences (pp. 107– 124). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Featherstone, D., Munby, H., & Russell, T. (1997). Finding a voice while learning to teach. London: Falmer Press.
Fecho, B., & Allen, J. (2003). Teacher inquiry into literacy, social justice, and power. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (2nd ed., pp. 232–246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1985). Pitfalls of experience in teacher preparation. Teachers College Record, 87, 53–65.
Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1989). Describing teacher education: A framework and illustrative findings from a longitudinal study of six students. Elementary School Journal, 89, 365–377.
Feldman, A. (1994a). Erzberger's dilemma: Validity in action research and science teachers’ need to know. Science Education, 78, 83–101.
Feldman, A. (1994b, April). Teachers learning from teachers: Knowledge and understanding in collaborative action research. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
Feldman, A. (1995). The institutionalization of action research: The California “100 schools” project. In S. Noffke & R. Stevenson (Eds.), Educational action research: Becoming practically critical (pp. 180–196). New York: Teachers College Press.
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, 513–540.
Feldman, A., & Minstrell, J. (2000). Action research as a research methodology for the study of teaching and learning of science. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 429–456). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fernandez, C., Chokshi, S., Cannon, J., & Yoshida, M. (in press). Learning about lesson study in the US. In M. Beauchamp (Ed.), New and old voices on Japanese education. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Fernandez, C., & Yoshida, M. (2004). Lesson study: Improving mathematics teaching and learning—A Japanese approach to improving mathematics teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Feuer, M. J., Towne, L., & Shavelson, R. J. (2002). Scientific culture and educational research. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 4–14.
Field, J. (2001). Science is life: How does using the outdoors as an extension of my classroom influence students’ perspectives of their world? Madison, WI: Teacher Action Research Project, Madison Metropolitan Public Schools.
Fink, L. C. (2000). Middle school students’ perspectives on collaborative learning, group size, and conceptual change. In A. E. Sweeney & K. Tobin (Eds.), Language, discourse, and learning in science: Improving professional practice through action research (pp. 33–43). Tallahassee, FL: South Eastern Regional Vision for Education (SERVE).
Fischer, J. (1996). Open to ideas: Developing a framework for your research. In G. Burnaford, J. Fischer, & D. Hobson (Eds.), Teachers doing research: Practical possibilities (pp. 33–50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fraser, B. J., & Tobin, K. G. (Eds.). (1998). International handbook of science education. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Fueyo, V., & Neves, A. (1995). Pre-service teacher as researcher: A research context for change in the heterogeneous classroom. Action in Teacher Education, 14, 39–49.
Gabel, D. (Ed.). (1994). Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Gaither, V. P. (2000). Interactive software as a tool for increasing student comprehension of basic chemistry concepts. Retrieved December 10, 20004, from http://gse.gmu.edu/research/lmtip/arp/vol2.htm
Gallas, K. (1995). Talking their way into science: Hearing children's questions and theories and responding with curricula. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gallas, K. (1997). Arts as epistemology: Enabling children to know what they know. In I. Hall, C. H. Campbell, & E. J. Miech (Eds.), Class acts: Teachers reflect on their own classroom practice (pp. 93–106). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review.
Gapinski, R., Hill, C., & Solis, S. (2000). How girls learn: Three case studies. Retrieved October 24, 2004, from http://www.d113.lake.k12.il.us/hphs/action/table_of_contents.htm
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915–945.
Gavin, J. (2002). How much traffic? Beep! Beep! Get that car off the number line! In R. Lehrer & L. Schauble (Eds.), Investigating real data in the classroom (pp. 39–47). New York: Teachers College Press.
Genovese, C. (2003). Can computer-based instruction improve molecular biology comprehension among general education students? Networks: An Online Journal for Teacher Research, 6(2), 1–7. Retrieved September 12, 2004, from http://education.ucsc.edu/faculty/gwells/networks/
Gonzalez, J. (1999). Failure and success rates of language minority students in a biology class. Retrieved September 12, 2004 from http://gse.gmu.edu/research/lmtip/arp/vol2.htm
Goodnough, K. (2001a). Teacher development through action research: A case study of an elementary teacher. Action in Teacher Education, 23, 37–46.
Goodnough, K. (2001b). Implementing multiple intelligences theory in a grade nine science classroom: The experiences of a high school teacher. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 1, 419–436.
Goodnough, K. (2001c). Multiple intelligences theory: A framework for personalizing science curricula. School Science and Mathematics, 101, 180–193.
Goodnough, K. (2003). Facilitating action research in the context of science education: Reflections of a university researcher. Educational Action Research, 11(1), 41–63.
Graham, E. (1995). What patterns of teacher-student verbal communication exist in my classroom? In S. A. Spiegel, A. Collins, & J. Lappert (Eds.), Action research: Perspectives from teachers’ classrooms. Science FEAT (Science for Early Adolescent Teachers, Section 4). Retrieved January 24, 2003, from http://www.enc.org/resources/records/full/0,1240,002432,00.shtm
Grimmett, P. P., & Erickson, G. L. (Eds.). (1988). Reflection in teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum: Product or praxis. London: Falmer Press.
Hall, I., Campbell, C. H., & Miech, E. J. (Eds.). (1997). Class acts: Teachers reflect on their own classroom practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review.
Hayton, M. (1995). Talking it through: Young children thinking science. In S. Atkinson & M. Fleer (Eds.), Science with reason (pp. 32–41). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Hazelwood, C., & Roth, K. J. (1992). Gender and discourse: The unfolding “living text” of a science lesson (Research Series no. 60). East Lansing: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching, Center for the Learning and Teaching of Elementary Subjects.
Heaton, R. M. (2000). Teaching mathematics to the new standards: Relearning the dance. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hedman, R. (2003). Lesson study 2002–2003: Natomas High School. Sacramento, CA: Sacramento Area Science Project.
Hermann, K. (2002). Teaching science to high school students who have limited formal schooling. Retrieved November 09, 2004, from http://gse.gmu.edu/research/lmtip/arp/vol2.htm
Hewson, P. W., Beeth, M. E., & Thorley, N. R. (1998). Teaching for conceptual change. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 199–218). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Hewson, P. W., & Hewson, M. G. (1984). The role of conceptual conflict in conceptual change and the design of science instruction. Instructional Science, 13, 1–13.
Hewson, P. W., Tabachnick, B. R., Zeichner, K. M., Blomker, K. B., Meyer, H., Lemberger, J., et al. (1999). Educating prospective teachers of biology: Introduction and research methods. Science Education, 83, 247–273.
Hewson, P. W., Tabachnick, B. R., Zeichner, K. M., & Lemberger, J. (1999). Educating prospective teachers of biology: Findings, limitations, and recommendations. Science Education, 83, 373–384.
Hicok, S. (2000). How does the use of reading strategies improve achievement in science for language minority students? Retrieved November 09, 2004, from http://gse.gmu.edu/research/lmtip/arp/vol2.htm
Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: What would it look like and how can we get one? Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3–15.
Hodgkinson, H. L. (1957). Action research—a critique. Journal of Educational Sociology, 31(4), 137–153.
Hollon, R., Anderson, C. W., & Roth, K. J. (1991). Science teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching: Vol. 2. Teachers’ knowledge of subject matter as it relates to their teaching practice (pp. 145–185). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Holmes Group. (1990). Tomorrow's schools: Principles for the design of professional development schools. East Lansing, MI: The Holmes Group.
Howes, E. (2002). Connecting girls and science: Constructivism, feminism, and science education reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
Howey, K., & Zimpher, N. (1989). Profiles of preservice teacher education. Albany: SUNY Press.
Huberman, M. (1996). Moving mainstream: Taking a closer look at teacher research. Language Arts, 73(2), 124–140.
Irwin, O. E. (1997). How much information from the textbook can grade 11 chemistry students read and process on their own? Retrieved November 09, 2004, from http://educ.queensu.ca/ar/liz-i.htm
Iwasyk, M. (2000). Kids questioning kids: “Experts” sharing. In J. Minstrell & E. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 130–138). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Jacobson, W. (1998). Defining the quality of practitioner research. Adult Education Quarterly, 48(3), 125–139.
Jesson, J. (1995). Rock week. In S. Atkinson & M. Fleer (Eds.), Science with reason (pp. 135–146). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Jinks, S., & Stanton, K. (2002). Reinforcing biology. Retrieved November 09, 2004, from http://gse.gmu.edu/research/lmtip/arp/vol2.htm
Joanos, L. G. (1997). First graders’ beliefs and perceptions of “what is science?” and “who is a scientist?” In J. B. McDonald & P. Gilmer (Eds.), Science in the elementary school classroom: Portraits of action research (pp. 25–36). Tallahassee, FL: SouthEastern Regional Vision for Education (SERVE).
Joseph, C. H. (2002). Using concept maps to aid reading comprehension in a high school biology classroom. Networks: An Online Journal for Teacher Research, 5(1). Retrieved November 09, 2004, from http://education.ucsc.edu/faculty/gwells/networks/
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner (3rd ed.). Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Press.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 567–605). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kennedy, M. M. (1996a). Teachers conducting research. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning.
Kennedy, M. M. (1996b). Teachers’ responses to educational research. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning.
Kennedy, M. M. (1997). The connection between research and practice. Educational Researcher, 26(7), 4–12.
Kennedy, M. M. (1998). Form and substance in inservice teacher education. Madison: University of Wisconsin–Madison, National Institute for Science Education.
Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J. E. (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061’s curriculum review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 522–549.
Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 631–645.
Kurose, A. (2000). Eyes on science: Asking questions about the moon on the playground, in class, and at home. In J. Minstrell & E. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning in science (pp. 139–147). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Kwan, R. (2000). How can I tap into children's curiosity in science? In J. Minstrell & E. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning in science (pp. 148–150). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Kyle, W. C., Linn, M. C., Bitner, B. L., Mitchner, C. P., & Perry, B. (1991). The role of research in science teaching: An NSTA theme paper. Science Education, 75, 413–418.
Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 29–63.
Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and problems of teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Lampert, M., & Ball, D. L. (1998). Teaching, multimedia, and mathematics: Investigations of real practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. New York: Routledge.
Lather, P. (1993). Fertile obsession: Validity after poststructuralism. Sociological Quarterly, 34, 673–693.
Lay, D. (2000). Science inquiry conference—a better way. In J. Minstrell & E. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning in science (pp. 164–168). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (Eds.). (2002). Investigating real data in the classroom: Expanding children's understanding of math and science. New York: Teachers College Press.
Lensmire, T. (1997). Writing workshop as carnival: Reflections on an alternative learning environment. In I. Hall, C. H. Campbell, & E. J. Miech (Eds.), Class acts: Teachers reflect on their own classroom practice (pp. 127–149). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review.
Lewis, C. (2002). Everywhere I looked—levers and pendulums: Research lessons bring studies to life and energize teaching. Journal of Staff Development, 23(3), 59–65.
Lewis, C., & Tsuchida, I. (1997). Planned educational change in Japan: The shift to student-centered elementary science. Journal of Educational Policy, 12, 313–331.
Lewis, C., & Tsuchida, I. (1998). A lesson is like a swiftly flowing river. American Educator, 22(4), 12–17, 50–52.
Lin, W.-J. (1998, April). The effects of restructuring biology teaching: An action research. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Diego.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1, 275–289.
Liu, Z., & Akerson, V. L. (2002). Science and language links: A fourth grade intern's attempt to increase language skills through science. Electronic Journal of Literacy Through Science, 1, Article 4. Retrieved August 11, 2004, from http://sweeneyhall.sjsu.edu/ejlts/vol1–2.htm
Lomax, P. (1994). Standards, criteria and the problematic of action research within an award-bearing course. Educational Action Research, 2(1), 113–126.
Lomax, P., & Parker, Z. (1995). Accounting for ourselves: The problematic of representing action research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 25(3), 301–314.
Loucks-Horsley, S. L. (1996). Professional development for science education: A critical and immediate challenge. In R. W. Bybee (Ed.), National standards and the science curriculum: Challenges, opportunities, and recommendations (pp. 83–95). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Loucks-Horsley, S. L., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Loucks-Horsley, S. L., Love, N., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P. W. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Loughran, J. J. (2002). Effective reflective practice: In search of meaning in learning about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 33–43.
Loughran, J. J., Mitchell, I., & Mitchell, J. (2002). Learning from teacher research. New York: Teachers College Press.
Loughran, J. J., & Northfield, J. R. (1996). Opening the classroom door: Teacher, researcher, learner. London: Falmer Press.
Loughran, J. J., & Russell, T. (1997). Teaching about teaching: Purpose, passion and pedagogy in teacher education. London: Falmer Press.
Love, N. (2002). Using data/getting results: A practical guide for school improvement in mathematics and science. Norwood, MA: Christopher Gordon.
McDaniel Hill, C. (1996). Project-based education in freshman chemistry/physics. Retrieved December 17, 2004, from http://www.d113.lake.k12.il.us/hphs/action/table_of_contents.htm
McDonald, J. B., & Gilmer, P. J. (Eds.). (1997). Science in the elementary school classroom: Portraits of action research. Tallahassee, FL: SouthEastern Regional Vision for Education (SERVE).
McGee, K. C. (2000). Reading road maps or reading guides: Which reading strategy helps students comprehend science textbook reading? Retrieved December 17, 2004, from http://gse.gmu.edu/research/lmtip/arp/vol2.htm
McGlinchey, A. (2002). Nutrition information in the fifth grade classroom: Does knowledge affect eating habits? Fairfax County, VA: Fairfax County Public Schools.
McGoey, J., & Ross, J. (1999). Guest editorial: Research, practice, and teacher internship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 121–130.
McNiff, J., Lomax, P., & Whitehead, J. (1996). You and your action research project. London: Routledge.
Miller, J. (1990). Creating spaces and finding voices: Teachers collaborating for empowerment. Albany, New York.
Minstrell, J. (1982a). Conceptual development research in the natural setting of a secondary school science classroom. In M. B. Rowe & W. S. Higuchi (Eds.), Education in the 80’s: Science. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Minstrell, J. (1982b). Explaining the “at rest” condition of an object. The Physics Teacher, 20, 10–14.
Minstrell, J. (1983). Getting the facts straight. The Science Teacher, 50(1), 52–54.
Minstrell, J. (1984). Teaching for the development of ideas: Forces on moving objects. In C. Anderson (Ed.), AETS yearbook: Observing science classrooms: Observing perspectives from research and practice (pp. 55–73). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
Minstrell, J. (1989). Teaching science for understanding. In L. B. Resnick & L. E. Klopfer (Eds.), Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research. 1989 yearbook of the association for supervision and curriculum development (pp. 129–149). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Minstrell, J., & van Zee, E. H. (Eds.). (2000). Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, H. H., & Novak, J. D. (1998). Teaching science for understanding: A human constructivist view. New York: Academic Press, Elsevier Science.
Mohr, M. M. (1987). Teacher researchers and the study of the writing process. In D. Goswami & P. R. Stillman (Eds.), Reclaiming the classroom: Teacher research as agency for change (pp. 94–106). Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
Mohr, M. M., Rogers, C., Sanford, B., Nocerino, M. A., MacLean, M. S., & Clawson, S. (2004). Teacher research for better schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Munby, H. (1995, April). Gazing in the mirror: Asking questions about validity in self-study research. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Munby, H. (1996). Being taught by my teaching: Self-study in the realm of educational computing. In J. Richards & T. Russell (Eds.), Proceedings of the First International Conference of the Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices: Empowering our future in teacher education (pp. 62–66). Herstmonceux Castle, East Sussex, England.
Myers, M. (1985). The teacher researcher: How to study writing in the classroom. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Staff Development Council. (2001). National staff development standards. Retrieved October 13, 2004, from http://www.nsdc.org/standards/datadriven.cfm
Nissley, C. (2000). Giving children a chance to investigate according to their own interests. In J. Minstrell & E. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry teaching in science (pp. 151–156). Washington, DC: Association for the Advancement of Science.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110.
Noffke, S., & Zeichner, K. (1987, April). Action research and teacher development. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
Northfield, J. (1996, November). The nature and quality of teacher research. Paper presented at the conference hosted jointly by the Singapore Educational Research Association and the Australian Association for Research in Education, Singapore.
Northfield, J. R. (1998). Teacher educators and the practice of science teacher education. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 695–706). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Northfield, J., & Mitchell, I. (1995, April). Bringing a research focus into the teaching role. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
O'Dea, J. (1994). Pursuing truth in narrative research. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 28(2), 161–171.
Olson, M. W. (1990). The teacher as researcher: A historical perspective. In M. W. Olson (Ed.), Opening the door to classroom research (pp. 1–20). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Ormes, C. (2000). Science teaching and learning as a vehicle for literacy of Hispanic illiterate children at risk. In A. E. Sweeney & K. Tobin (Eds.), Language, discourse, and learning in science: Improving professional practice through action research (pp. 151–160). Tallahassee, FL: South Eastern Regional Vision for Education (SERVE).
Osborne, M. D. (1993). Teaching with and without mirrors: Examining science teaching in elementary school from the perspective of teacher and learner. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing.
Osborne, M. D. (1997). Balancing individual and the group: A dilemma for the constructivist teacher. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29, 183–196.
Osler, J., & Flack, J. (2002). Tales from the poppy patch. In J. Loughran, I. Mitchell, & J. Mitchell (Eds.), Learning from teacher research (pp. 222–245). New York: Teachers College Press.
Ovens, P. (2000). Reflective teacher development in primary science. London: Falmer Press.
Painter, D. deM. (1997). A journey through the solar system. Fairfax County, VA: Deer Park Elementary School, Fairfax Public Schools.
Park, P., Brydon-Miller, M., Hall, B., & Jackson, T. (Eds.). (1993). Voices of change: Participatory research in the US and Canada. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Pearce, C. R. (1993). What if … .? In W. Saul (Ed.), Science workshop: A whole language approach (pp. 53–77). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Pearce, C. R. (1999). Nurturing inquiry: Real science for the elementary classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Pekarek, R., Krockover, G. H., & Shepardson, D. P. (1996). The research-practice gap in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 111–113.
Penick, J. E. (1986, January/February). Science education research: Why don't we believe it? Curriculum Review, 23(3), 67–70.
Pinkerton, K. (1994). Using brain-based techniques in high school science. Teaching and Change, 2(1), 44–61.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211–227.
Putz, A. (2002). How children organize and understand data. In R. Lehrer & L. Schauble (Eds.), Investigating real data in the classroom (pp. 27–38). New York: Teachers College Press.
Reardon, J. (2002). Science workshop: Capturing the essence of scientific inquiry. In W. Saul (Ed.), Science workshop: Reading, writing, thinking like a scientist (pp. 17–38). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Reardon, J., & Saul, W. (Eds.). (1996). Beyond the science kit: Inquiry in action. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Reason, P. (2001). Learning and change through action research. In J. Henry (Ed.), Creative management (pp. 182–194). London: Sage.
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2002). Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. London: Sage.
Richardson, V. (1994). Teacher inquiry as professional staff development. In S. Hollingsworth & H. Sockett (Eds.), Teacher research and educational reform (pp. 186–203). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Roberts, A. (1999). Taming the monsters: Practical intimacies in a third grade Costa Rican classroom. Educational Action Research, 7, 345–363.
Roberts, D. (1999). The sky's the limit. Science and Children, 37(1), 33–37.
Roberts, D. (2000). Learning to teach science through inquiry: A new teacher's story. In J. Minstrell & E. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 120–129). Washington, DC: Association for the Advancement of Science.
Rosaen, C. R., & Roth, K. J. (1995). Similarities and contrasts between writing during a writer's workshop and writing in science: Examining the teacher's role. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching (Vol. 5, pp. 291–355). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Rosaen, C. R., Roth, K. J., & Lanier, P. E. (1988, February). Learning to teach subject matter: Cases in English, mathematics and science. Paper presented at the Midwest regional meeting of the Holmes Group, Chicago.
Rosas, C. (1997). Using participatory action research for the reconceptualization of educational practice. In S. Hollingsworth (Ed.), International action research: A casebook for educational reform (pp. 219–224). London: Falmer Press.
Roth, K. J. (1993). What does it mean to understand science? Changing perspectives from a teacher and her students (Elementary Subjects Center Research Series no. 96). East Lansing: Center for the Learning and Teaching of Elementary Subjects, Michigan State University.
Roth, K. J. (1994). Second thoughts about interdisciplinary curricula. American Educator, 18(1), 44–48.
Roth, K. J. (1996). The role of writing in creating a science learning community (Research Series 62). East Lansing, MI: Elementary Subjects Center.
Roth, K. J. (1998). I listened to the kids’ ideas, now what? A conceptual change model of science teaching. East Lansing: Michigan State University and Future Media.
Roth, K. J. (2000). The photosynthesis of Columbus: Exploring interdisciplinary curriculum from the students’ perspectives. In S. Wineburg & P. Grossman (Eds.), Interdisciplinary curriculum: Challenges to implementation (pp. 112–133). New York: Teachers College Press.
Roth, K. J. (2002). Talking to understand science. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching (Vol. 6, pp. 197–262). Boston: JAI Press.
Roth, K. J. Anderson, C. W., & Smith, E. L. (1987). Curriculum materials, teacher talk, and student learning: Case studies in fifth grade science teaching (Research Series no. 171). East Lansing: Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University.
Roth, K. J., Druker, S. L., Garnier, H., Lemmens, M., Chen, C., Kawanaka, T., et al. (2005). Teaching science in five countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Roth, K. J., Hasbach, C., Hazelwood, C., Hoekwater, E., Ligett, C., Lindquist, B., et al. (1992). Entry-ways into science and science teaching: Teacher and researcher development in a professional development school (Elementary Subjects Center Series no. 84). East Lansing: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching, Center for the Learning and Teaching of Elementary Subjects.
Roth, K. J., Peasley, K., & Hazelwood, C. (1992). Integration from the student perspective: Constructing meaning in science (Research Series no. 63). East Lansing: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching, Center for the Learning and Teaching of Elementary Subjects.
Roth, W.-M. (2000, April). Being and becoming in the science classroom. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans.
Roth, W.-M., & Boyd, N. (1999). Coteaching, as colearning, in practice. Research in Science Education, 29, 51–67.
Roth, W.-M., & Tobin, K. (2004). Coteaching: From praxis to theory. Teachers and teaching. Theory and Practice, 10(2), 161–179.
Ruddick, J. (1985). Teacher research and research-based teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 11, 281–289.
Russell, T. (1997). Teaching teachers: How I teach IS the message. In J. Loughran & T. Russell (Eds.), Teaching about teaching: Purpose, passion and pedagogy in teacher education (pp. 32–47). London: Falmer Press.
Russell, T., & Bullock, S. (1999). Discovering our professional knowledge as teachers: Critical dialogues about learning from experience. In J. Loughran (Ed.), Researching teaching: Methodologies and practices for understanding pedagogy (pp. 132–151). London: Falmer Press.
Russell, T., & Munby, H. (1994). The authority of experience in learning to teach: Messages from a physics methods class. Journal of Teacher Education, 4(5) 86–95.
Salish I Research Project. (1997). Secondary science and mathematics teacher preparation programs: Influences on new teachers and their students. Iowa City: University of Iowa.
Saul, W. (Ed.). (1993). Science workshop: A whole language approach. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Saul, W. (Ed.). (2002). Science workshop: Reading, writing, thinking like a scientist. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Schoenemann, A. (2003). How can I assess what students understand about key science concepts? Madison, WI: Teacher Action Research Project, Madison Metropolitan Public Schools.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1998). Toward a theory of teaching-in-context. Issues in Education, 4, 1–94.
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Schön, D. (1988). Educating teachers as reflective practitioners. In P. Grimmett & G. Erickson (Eds.), Reflection in teacher education (pp. 19–29). New York: Teachers College Press.
Scott, C. A. (1994). Project-based science: Reflections of a middle school teacher. Elementary School Journal, 95, 75–94.
Senese, J. (n.d.). The action research laboratory: A model of professional development for teachers. Retrieved November 10, 2004, from http://www.d113.lake.k12.il.us/hphs/action/table_of_contents.htm
Senese, J., Fagel, L, Gorleski, J., & Swanson, P. (1998, August). Teacher self study: Classroom practitioners’ perspectives on the merits of the action research laboratory experience. Paper presented at the meeting of the Second International Conference on Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, Herstmonceux Castle, UK.
Shafer, L. (2000). Teacher research continuum chart. Retrieved September 13, 2004, from http://gse.gmu.edu/research/tr/Trprofessional.shtml
Shimahara, N. K. (1998). The Japanese model of professional development: Teaching as craft. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 451–462.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.
Simmons, P. E., Emory, A., Coker, T., Finnegan, B., Crockett, D., Richardson, L., et al. (1999). Beginning teachers: Beliefs and classroom actions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 930–954.
Smith, D. (2001). Making a new song about science. Retrieved July 15, 2004, from http://gallery.carnegiefoundation.org/dsmith/index2.html
Spiegel, S. A., Collins, A., & Lappert, J. (1995). Action research: Perspectives from teachers’ classrooms. Tallahassee, FL: SouthEastern Regional Vision for Education Math/Science Consortium (SERVE).
Stahly, L. L., Krockover, G. H., & Shepardson, D. P. (1999). Third grade students’ ideas about the lunar phases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 159–177.
Stanulis, R. N., & Jeffers, L. (1995). Action research as a way of learning about teaching in a mentor/student teacher relationship. Action in Teacher Education, 16, 14–24.
Steiner, L. (1999). What the research says about professional development that works. In E. Hassel, Professional development: Learning from the best (pp. 93–100). Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann.
Stenhouse, L. (1983). Authority, education, and emancipation. London: Heinemann Educational Books.
Stevenson, R. (1996, February). What counts as “good” action research? Paper presented at the meeting of the Ethnography in Educational Research Forum, Philadelphia.
Stigler, J., Gallimore, R., & Hiebert, J. (2000). Using video surveys to compare classrooms and teaching across cultures: Examples and lessons from the TIMSS video studies. Educational Psychologist, 35(2), 87–100.
Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world's teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: Free Press.
Sweeney, A. E., & Tobin, K. (Eds.) (2000). Language, discourse, and learning in science: Improving professional practice through action research. Tallahassee, FL: SouthEastern Regional Vision for Education (SERVE).
Taba, H., & Noel, E. (1957). Action research: A case study. Washington, DC: Association for Curriculum and Supervision.
Tabachnick, B. R., & Zeichner, K. M. (1999). Ideas and action: Action research and the development of conceptual change teaching of science. Science Education, 83, 309–322.
Takemura, S., & Shimizu, K. (1993). Goals and strategies for science teaching as perceived by elementary teachers in Japan and the US. Peabody Journal of Education, 14(1), 25–40.
Thompson, S. (1995). Equality in the classroom: An attempt to eliminate bias in my classroom. In S. A. Spiegel, A. Collins, & J. Lappert (Eds.), Action research: Perspectives from teachers’ classrooms. Science FEAT (Science for Early Adolescent Teachers, Section 6). Retrieved January 24, 2003, from http://www.enc.org/professional/learn/research/journal/science/document.shtm?input=ENC-002432-2432
Threatt, S., Buchanan, J., Morgan, B., Strieb, L. Y., Sugarman, J., Swenson, J., Teel, K., & Tomlinson, J. (1994). Teachers’ voices in the conversation about teacher research. In S. Hollingsworth & H. Sockett (Eds.), Teacher research and educational reform (pp. 222–233). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tillotson, J. W., Ochanji, M. K., & Diana, T. J. (2004). Reflecting on the game: Action research in science education . In J. Weld (Ed.). The game of science education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Tracy, C. O. (2002). Assessment: A new science teacher's attempt to use assessment as a form of conversation. Retrieved October 16, 2004, from http://gse.gmu.edu/research/lmtip/arp/vol2.htm
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. (2003). Identifying and implementing educational practices supported by rigorous evidence: A user friendly guide. Washington, DC: Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy.
Valverde, R. M. (2000). Children's literature: An integrative strategy for teaching elementary scientific concepts and vocabulary. In A.E. Sweeney & K. Tobin (Eds.), Language, discourse, and learning in science: Improving professional practice through action research (pp. 85–93). Tallahassee, FL: SouthEastern Regional Vision for Education (SERVE).
van Zee, E. H. (1998a). Fostering elementary teachers’ research on their science teaching practices. Journal of Teacher Education, 49(4), 1–10.
van Zee, E. H. (1998b). Preparing teachers as researchers in courses on methods of teaching science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 7 91–809.
van Zee, E. H. (2000). Ways of fostering teachers’ inquiries into science learning and teaching. In J. Minstrell & E. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 100– 119). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
van Zee, E. H., Iwasyk, M., Kurose, A., Simpson, D., & Wild, J. (2001). Student and teacher questioning during conversations about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 159–190.
Veldman, P. M. (1997). Changing a teacher's role to evoke meaningful learning behaviors. In J. B. McDonald & P. Gilmer (Eds.), Science in the elementary school classroom: Portraits of action research (pp. 49–58). Tallahassee, FL: SouthEastern Regional Vision for Education (SERVE).
Wainwright, S. (2002). Shadows. In R. Lehrer & L. Schauble (Eds.), Investigating real data in the classroom (pp. 55–62). New York: Teachers College Press.
Weiss, I. R., Pasley, J. D., Smith, P. S., Banilower, E. R., & Heck, D. J. (2003). Looking inside the classroom: A study of K–12 mathematics and science education in the US. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
Wells, G. (1994). The meaning makers: Children learning language and using language to learn. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
West, L. H. T., & Pines, A. L. (1985). Cognitive structure and conceptual change. New York: Academic Press.
Whitehurst, G. J. (2002, March). Research on teacher preparation and professional development. Paper presented at the meeting of the White House Conference on Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers, Washington, DC.
Wild, J. (2000). How does a teacher facilitate conceptual development in the intermediate classroom? In J. Minstrell & E. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 157–163). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Winograd, K., & Evans, T. (1995). Pre-service elementary teachers’ perceptions of an action research assignment. Action in Teacher Education, 17, 13–22.
Wong, E. D. (1995). Challenges confronting the researcher/teacher: Conflicts of purpose and conduct. Educational Researcher, 24, 22–28.
Yoshida, M. (1999). Lesson study: An ethnographic investigation of school-based teacher development in Japan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.
Zeichner, K. M. (1993). Action research: Personal renewal and social reconstruction. Educational Action Research, 1, 199–219.
Zeichner, K. M. (1997, October). Action research as a tool for educational and social reconstruction. Paper presented at the meeting of the Brazilian National Association of Postgraduate Education and Educational Research, Caxambu, Brazil.
Zeichner, K. M, Klehr, M., & Caro-Bruce, C. (2000). Pulling their own levers: The control aspect of action research helps Madison project succeed. Journal of Staff Development, 21(4), 36–39.
Zeichner, K. M., & Noffke, S. E. (2001). Practitioner research. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 298–330) Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.