Action research

Conduct a primary research or lesson study in a secondary science classroom. The task is to test out a teaching methodology or approach within an actual classroom. Choose one issue that you are interested in and set up a hypothesis and organize a short-term study. For example, will utilizing a structured closure activity at the end of every class make a difference on achievement on unit assessments? Conduct the experiment and report on the results.

To identify whether the teaching methodology or approach made any difference, use a simple pre/post test design. Give each student a pre-test (optimally at least a week before the intervention so the pre-test doesn’t influence the intervention) and a post-test (optimally unannounced at least a week after the intervention in order to evaluate long-term learning but this can be flexible based on your objectives). For each student, determine the difference in the pre and post scores (called the “gain”) and the “relative gain” (the gain divided by the maximum possible gain that the student could’ve achieved).

The results are to be presented in a verbal summary that should include the following:

1. A brief description of the methodology or approach being tested along with a rationale for the test.

2. A summary of the pre-test and post-test results, including a calculation of the average relative gain.

3. An analysis of the lesson (i.e., what went right, what went wrong).

Completing the activity as described is sufficient for an A (undergrad) as long as the interpretations provided in each item is appropriate.

Graduate students must also complete a written report. The written report should include the following:

1. A description of the classes that were studied (e.g., grade, subject, # of students, period length, etc.)

2. A description of the methodology or approach being tested (provide an outline of the lesson or units)

3. A description of the assessment along with a rationale for the test items

4. A summary of the pre-test and post-test results, including a calculation of the average relative gain.

5. An analysis of the lesson (i.e., what went right, what went wrong).

6. Recommendations for revision based upon the results.

The rubric for evaluating the written report is provided on the next page. Each category roughly corresponds to the following scores (based on a 90, 80, 70 = A, B, C):

3 = 115

2 = 100

1 = 70

0 = 0

Examples of possible topics are:

· Use of structured activities, e.g. closure, cooperative learning, laboratory activities, exploration activities, games, differentiated instruction, etc.

· Use of different presentation strategies, e.g. questioning, discussion, PowerPoint, hand-outs vs. taking notes, etc.

· Use of different assessment strategies, e.g. journals, questioning, quizzes, rubrics, etc.

· Use of different lesson organizations, e.g. exploration before explanation vs. presentation before verification laboratory.

Action research report (rubric; for grad students only)

Clarity

0.0 Unacceptable: Report is overly ambiguous and/or difficult to read due to multiple syntax/grammatical errors

1.0 Developing: Report ambiguous or difficult to read in spots but overall written clearly;

2.0 Proficient: Report clearly and concisely written with few grammatical errors;

3.0 Advanced: Report clearly and concisely written with few grammatical errors; Reference to evidence (e.g. pre/post tests) clearly marked with arguments using the evidence to support assertions made within the report

Design

0.0 Unacceptable: Design of project is unclear and/or has significant design flaws that are likely to prevent the data from revealing the intended effects on learning;

1.0 Developing: Design is clear enough to allow a reader to conduct a similarly-design project but lacks information about the students involved; project has some design flaws that might prevent the data from demonstrating whether the selected methodologies/approaches have an effect on student learning

2.0 Proficient: Design is clear enough to allow a reader to conduct a similarly-design project; information about the students involved provided; based upon the design, it is likely that the data can be used to demonstrate whether the selected methodologies/approaches have an effect on student learning

3.0 Advanced: Design is very clear with sufficient information to properly interpret any results and design ensures that collected data can be used to demonstrate whether the selected methodologies/approaches have an effect on student learning

Results

0.0 Unacceptable: Relationship between data and project design is unclear; mathematical errors and/or flaws exist in the way the data is manipulated or presented that influence the interpretation of the data;

1.0 Developing: It is clear how the data was obtained; mathematical errors and/or flaws exist in the way the data is manipulated or presented but such errors are not expected to influence the interpretation of the data;

2.0 Proficient: It is clear how the data was obtained and tabulated; manipulation of data and appropriate discussion of statistic significance of the results adequately reflects the effects of the methodologies on learning;

3.0 Advanced: It is clear how the data was obtained and tabulated; data is manipulated in such a way to both adequately reflect the effects of the methodologies on learning while removing differences irrelevant to the study

Interpretation and Conclusion

0.0 Unacceptable: Interpretation is not supported by some of the data;

1.0 Developing: Interpretation is supported by some of the data; Potential weaknesses in the study are identified but does not propose changes for future studies that could adequately address them;

2.0 Proficient: Interpretation well-supported by the data; discusses impact of findings on own teaching, identifies possible weaknesses in design and proposes changes for future studies to adequately address those design flaws;

3.0 Advanced: Interpretation well-supported by the data, weaknesses identified and changes proposed for future studies that are highly likely to address those design flaws; Discusses impact of findings on own teaching