|
Correspondence to: Erin E. Peters; Email: epeters1@gmu.edu |
|
Goals · To investigate the involvement of a reading teacher in an intensive, long-term, collaborative, design-based research PD experience in science · Describe the impact of the experience on perceptions of her practical knowledge of science, reading and teaching and learning |
|
Conceptual Framework · Reading and inquiry-based science have parallels that can be used to maximize instruction · Design-based research may help to bridge the gap between traditional research and teacher practice · Long-term, immersive, and collaborative PD experiences may encourage teacher conceptual change toward inquiry |
|
Research Questions · How does involvement in an intensive design-based research experience in science impact a reading teacher’s practical knowledge related to the intersection of inquiry-based science and reading comprehension? · How does a reading teacher engage in a collaborative design-based research experience as co-constructor of an instructional technology-based system in science? |
|
Methods The design-based research experience generally followed an emerging process model that attempts to intersect systematic instructional design processes with rigorous research investigation of cognitively-based theories about teaching and learning entitled the Integrative Learning Design Framework (see Bannan-Ritland, 2003). · Interviews before, during and after the design-based research experience · Weekly online discussions · Course work products such as concept maps, research reports, and colleague interviews · Class meetings |
|
Validity · Variety of data sources · Checks on perceptions and performance · Frequent member checks · Control for “reactivity” through researcher memos · Consideration of alternative conclusions |
|
Impact of D-B R on teacher practical knowledge of inquiry and reading comprehension in science |
|
Engagement of a reading teacher in a Design-Based Research experience |
|
More complex views of relationships between science and reading |
|
Insights into student learning and pedagogy in science |
|
Progressive conceptual change to a more expansive definition of inquiry-based science |
|
Deeper understanding of geoscience |
|
Themes |
Supporting Ideas |
|
Impact on practical knowledge |
Process and content more effective when taught simultaneously (Koch & Eckstein, 1995) “. . . you have to be knowledgeable about your topic, you have to know enough to ask a researchable question and to lead you in that direction” |
|
Idea of science inquiry progressed from linear scientific method to iterative model of inquiry (Norris & Phillips, 2003; Yore, 2003) “I was confused the first half of how inquiry would work in science when you’re trying to meet all these standards and how are you going to do that through just kids asking questions” |
|
|
Engagement in collaborative design research process |
D-B R more authentic than other professional development (Lee, Hart, Cuevas & Enders, 2004; Borko, 2004) “It’s really practical and we’re asked to do things for a purpose; it’s authentic. . . . It’s kind of like inside of me changing what I do” |
|
Collaboration aided her ability to articulate science concepts and have empathy for diverse issues inherent in group processes (Jeanpierre, Oberhauser & Freeman, 2005) “Now I couldn’t just pretend like these things (problems with student learning) weren’t here . . . put a bunch of nice things on paper that look good on paper. But looking back and reflecting, that’s pretty much what happened last year.” |
|
|
Iterative process of D-B R illustrated the process of building concepts (van Driel, Beijjard & Verloop, 2001) “. . . in the way you’re building layers instead of just directly teaching that thing. . . . These things build on each other.” |