The following research article attached provides an example of how action research methods can be applied to understanding structural relationships between human capital investment
Instructions
The following research article attached provides an example of how action research methods can be applied to understanding structural relationships between human capital investments and long-term organizational outcomes. Read the article carefully and review the Creswell and Creswell text, the Pyrczak and Oh text, and other course resources and materials as necessary.
Once you have read and made notes on the article, complete the template (linked below) to help you analyze the article. Address all prompts in the document and answer all questions. Include a list of properly-formatted references at the end.
1
6
Action Research Study Report
Insert Your Name Here
School of Public Service and Education,
Research Design for Practitioners
Insert the Instructor’s Name Here
Insert the Due Date Here (Month, Day, Year)
Introduction
1. Mostofo and Zambo (2015) chose Vygotsky Space as the theoretical framework. Additionally, later in the article, the authors asserted that,” Jim’s goal was to create an innovation that allowed preservice teachers the opportunity to teach more in the methods classroom before teaching in the field-experience classroom and to systematically investigate the effect of this” (p. 499). Based on the chosen theoretical framework, reflect on the degree to which you think this framework was appropriate for and aligned to the intended purpose of this action research project?
Methodology
3. What are your reflections on collecting and analyzing qualitative data to demonstrate the impact of a potential AIP?
Results
4. Was the data analysis sufficient to verify the impact of the intervention?
Discussion/Conclusion
5. What ideas, concepts, or processes from this study did you find interesting or useful and how might those ideas, concepts, or processes be incorporated into an applied research project or applied to online learning in general? What intervention might be implemented for preservice teachers related to your area of interest or discipline?
References
,
1
4
Action Research Study Report
Insert your Name Here
School of Public Service and Education,
Research Design for Practitioners
Insert the Instructor’s Name Here
Insert the Due Date Here (Month, Day, Year)
[Writing Instructions]
[This assignment needs be written in the third person voice. Do not write in the first-person voice (I . . .). There should be none of you and your voice in this assignment or the course project. However, for those questions that ask you your opinion or how something applies to your Applied Improvement Project, you can answer in the first-person voice. Do not use awkward language such as The researcher . . . or The learner when referring to yourself. Do not refer to yourself unless you are answering those questions that ask you your opinion or how something applies to your potential Applied Improvement Project (AIP). Do not write in the second person voice (writing that uses the language you or your).]
[Always present the study and other literature with past tense verbs (APA 7th ed. section 4.12 pp. 117-118); for example: Mostofo and Zambo (2015) conducted . . . Scholarly writing is meant to be read and interpreted literally. Therefore, please avoid slang, colloquialisms, anthropomorphisms, and conversational writing (refer to APA 7th ed. pp. 113-125). Instead, be clear, precise, and accurate in your writing.]
[At the doctoral level, most of your writing should involve summarizing or paraphrasing the literature. However, for an assignment like this one in which you conduct an in-depth review and analysis of a single study, there will be instances when you need to use a direct quote. For direct quotes with fewer than 40 words, put quotation marks around the quoted text and include within the in-text citation, the author’s name, year, and page or para. number from which the quote came. For direct quotes with 40 or more words, put in block format (See APA 7th ed. pp. 272-273 for guidance and examples) and include within the in-text citation, the author’s name, year, and page or para. number from which the quote came. There might be instances in which you use a direct quote that came from the article’s literature review. If the article’s authors use a quote or cite another author and you want to use that text as a direct text, be sure to quote your authors as the secondary sources (see APA 7th ed. p. 258).]
[Do not write with bullet points. Instead use complete sentences developed within coherent paragraphs. Use transitional language to smoothly move the flow of the thought.]
[Apply APA formatting rules and adhere to APA writing style guidelines.]
[Here are two important self-assessment final steps to help ensure you do as well as you can with the assignment: When you complete your draft, read it aloud to yourself. This step can catch typos, grammar errors, awkward writing, etc. For a final step – Self-assess your assignment by reviewing the corresponding scoring guide and compare the distinguished column criteria to your draft and revise as necessary.]
Introduction
[Briefly identify the qualitative study by following APA writing style, which means citing the authors’ last names and year of publication. When identifying and discussing the study do not include the article’s title in your text as that is not how APA style writing is done. The title can be found in the reference citations. Instead follow APA writing style and include only the author’s last name and the year the article was published each time you refer to the study.]
[When describing the study do not write with anthropomorphisms. An anthropomorphism is when you assign human capabilities to a study or other non-human entities. Here is an example of anthropomorphism: The study found . . . Please note that studies are incapable of taking human action. Instead write, for example: Jones (2018) found . . . Avoid writing like this: The authors found . . . or The researchers found . . . Instead write, for example: Smith and Jones (2019) found . . . Smith and Jones (2019) explained . . . Note that in APA writing style you use past tense verbs to present or describe a study (see APA 7th ed. pp 117-118).]
[Follow APA writing style and identify the authors each time you refer to the study. Within a paragraph in which you cite the same author or authors more than once, include the year in the first citation and omit the year in subsequent citations within the paragraph (refer to APA 7th ed. section 8.16 pp. 265-266).]
[Briefly describe the key features of the action research study. Describe the purpose of the study. Did the study attempt to resolve a problem or improve a process? Identify the contextual factors and variables (if the action study included a quantitative component). List the research questions ensuring that if you use direct quotes that you use quotation marks and an in-text citation. Describe how the study represents and embodies an action research approach. Refer to your Stringer (2020) text pp. 4-15.]
Research Theory Framework
[Briefly summarize the research-theory framework. Upon what theory or model or previous research is the action research study positioned? or put another way: What theory or model and or previous research was used to describe the foundation for this action research study? Also describe the contextual factors and related research.]
[In addition, answer the following questions: Please leave the prompts (questions) below in your paper and respond below each.]
1. Mostofo and Zambo (2015) chose Vygotsky Space as the theoretical framework. Additionally, later in the article, the authors asserted that,” Jim’s goal was to create an innovation that allowed preservice teachers the opportunity to teach more in the methods classroom before teaching in the field-experience classroom and to systematically investigate the effect of this” (p. 499). Based on the chosen theoretical framework, reflect on the degree to which you think this framework was appropriate for and aligned to the intended purpose of this action research project?
2. Mostofo and Zambo (2015) collaborated with a variety of colleagues to develop this action research intervention. In light of this process, reflect on what potential roles stakeholder collaboration might have on the conceptualization and development of your AIP?
Methodology
[Briefly describe the study sample (number of participants, where they were studied, and their demographics). Describe the intervention and the cyclical nature of the study. Describe how data were collected and analyzed. Describe how threats to validity were countered or neutralized (to ensure credibility, dependability, and transferability) and any legal or ethical issues/considerations were addressed. Typically, researchers as authors will not state assertions in their journal articles reporting studies such as: Here is how I countered threats to validity or Here is what I did to address ethical considerations. Instead, they describe how they countered threat of validity and ethical considerations as a part of their methodology descriptions. Therefore, you need to be able to recognize how threats to validity were countered and ethical considerations addressed. Refer to the Creswell and Creswell (2018) text (see pp. 199-202) and/or your CITI training. If the threats to validity and ethical issues and considerations were not discussed, that omission is a weakness and limitation in the study and indicate that these were missing.]
[In addition, answer the following questions: Please leave the prompts (questions) below in your paper and respond below each.]
3. What are your reflections on collecting and analyzing qualitative data to demonstrate the impact of a potential AIP?
Results
[Include a comprehensive summary of the major findings of the study. Remember – at the doctoral level you should use direct quotes sparingly because the bulk of your writing should consist of summarizing and paraphrasing.]
[In addition, answer the following question: Please leave the prompt (question) below in your paper and respond below each.]
4. Was the data analysis sufficient to verify the impact of the intervention? Why or why not?
Discussion/Conclusion
[Describe how Mostofo and Zambo’s findings fit into the systems literature (the term systems literature refers to the related relevant literature presented in the study’s literature review). In other words, what theoretical concepts, assumptions and or expectations from the literature review were confirmed by the findings and what does that confirmation mean? Describe the strengths and limitations of the findings. How might the study have been improved? Include your ideas for improving the study. Describe Mostofo and Zambo’s recommendations for future research and implications for practice.]
[Conclude by describing how Mostofo and Zambo’s findings could be applied to practice. In other words, what did your learn from Mostofo and Zambo’s study that could be applied by practitioners (organizational leaders)?]
[In addition, answer the following question: Please leave the prompt (question) below in your paper and respond below each.]
5. What ideas, concepts, or processes from this study did you find interesting or useful and how might those ideas, concepts, or processes be incorporated into an applied research project or applied to online learning in general? What intervention might be implemented for preservice teachers related to your area of interest or discipline?
References
[Include a properly formatted list of references cited in this assignment. References go on a separate page. Include all references cited. Ensure references are in the hanging indent format and are properly APA formatted; refer to APA Publication Manual 7th edition (2020) Chapters 9 and 10 for guidance and examples. Do not include references contained with Mostofo and Zambo’s article unless you have read these sources.]
Mostofo, J., & Zambo, R. (2015). Improving instruction in mathematics methods classroom through action research. Education Action Research, 23(4), 497-513. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2015.1019903
Stringer, E. T. (2014). Action research: A handbook for practitioners (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
,
Improving instruction in the mathematics methods classroom through action research
Jameel Mostofoa* and Ron Zambob
aCollege of Education, Grand Canyon University, Phoenix, AZ, USA; bElementary Education, Arizona State University, Glendale, AZ, USA
(Received 13 August 2014; accepted 12 February 2015)
There is a continuing emphasis in the United States on improving students’ mathematical abilities, and one approach is to better prepare teachers. To investi- gate the potential usefulness of Lesson Study to better prepare teachers, one author set out to conduct action research on his classroom practice. Specifically, he sought to determine whether using Lesson Study with preservice secondary mathematics teachers might better prepare students to be teachers. The partici- pants were preservice teachers who were enrolled in a mathematics methods course in an undergraduate teacher preparation program at a private university. The researcher served as a participant observer who implemented an innovation, Lesson Study, in his classroom and observed the effect on students. Lesson Study engaged the preservice teachers in collaboratively creating, field testing, revising, and re-teaching lessons in their field placement classroom. Data were weekly reflections and summative interviews of the preservice teachers. The researcher found that Lesson Study was an effective strategy for enhancing the efficacy of preservice teachers. Action research showed the importance of collab- orative lesson preparation, practice teaching, and observations of other teachers. The preservice teachers successfully transitioned from teaching in the methods classroom to their field-experience classroom, which enhanced their confidence as they entered student-teaching.
Keywords: action research; Lesson Study; mathematics; preservice teachers
Introduction
Preparing effective teachers of mathematics is one of the most urgent problems fac- ing those in teacher education because teaching is very complex (Hiebert et al. 2007; Morris, Hiebert, and Spitzer 2009). However, despite its complexity, some novices presume it to be easy (Grossman et al. 2009). In fact, many preservice teachers believe that teaching is simply common sense and professional study is not needed (Ball and Cohen 1999; Kennedy 1999; Munby, Russell, and Martin 2001). The challenge for teacher educators is to provide preservice teachers with opportuni- ties to develop habits of continued professional learning and, through action research, investigate what they try (Chassels and Melville 2009; Ganesh and Matteson 2010; Hiebert et al. 2007).
Planning and teaching lessons can be overwhelming for preservice teachers in the early stages of their development (Carrier 2011). Therefore, providing opportunities
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
© 2015 Educational Action Research
Educational Action Research, 2015 Vol. 23, No. 4, 497–513, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2015.1019903
to learn by doing with careful coaching by experts in low-risk settings is critical for preservice teachers to begin learning their practice (Schon 1987). The university education classroom can provide these low-risk settings through role-playing and prac- tice teaching in an environment of support, feedback, and investigation (Fernandez 2005; Ganesh and Matteson 2010; Grossman et al. 2009).
Unfortunately, methods courses (courses focused on the methodology of teach- ing) often seem far removed from the reality of an actual classroom (Cohan and Honigsfeld 2006; Grossman et al. 2009). Methods courses are typically taught through lectures and discussion of theory and research, and are often not focused on the actual on-your-feet practice of teaching (Fernandez 2005). Much of the knowl- edge needed to teach effectively ‘is situated in practice, [and] it must be learned in practice’ (Ball and Cohen 1999, 3–4).
Jim, the first author, teaches in the College of Education in a private university in the southwestern region of the United States. Ron, the second author, was his dis- sertation chair. All first-person references in this article refer back to Jim as he was the practitioner for this study. The participants in this study (preservice teachers) were undergraduates who were studying secondary education and majoring in mathematics. The study came about after frustration in the way students perceived one of Jim’s courses. Being in a doctoral program where students did action research and wrote an action research dissertation brought this group together. This study examined Jim’s secondary mathematics methods course, which had a curriculum that consisted primarily of planning and teaching mathematics lessons. Coupled with the face-to-face class meetings, each preservice teacher was required to participate in 15 hours of field experience in a secondary mathematics classroom (field experience consists of observing secondary mathematics teachers in actual classrooms). Jim’s goal for this project was to examine the impact of using Japanese Lesson Study in his class to see whether these preservice teachers could learn more by ‘doing’ rather than observing mathematics teaching. Jim’s goal for doing action research was to make him a better practitioner-researcher.
Theoretical foundation
This study was based on the Vygotsky Space as the theoretical framework. The Vygotsky Space has four phases that are cyclical rather than linear; a learner can be functioning at any given time in any of the quadrants (Gallucci et al. 2010). This theory represents learning in terms of relationships between collective and individual actions and between public and private settings. The individual internalizes the social practice, transforms the practice in their context, and eventually externalizes (shares) the practice with others (Gallucci et al. 2010).
The iterative stages of the learning process as proposed by Vygotsky and depicted by Gallucci et al. (2010) include the following:
• Individual appropriation of particular ways of thinking through interaction with others.
• Individual transformation and ownership of that thinking in the context of one’s own work.
• Publication of new learning through talk or action. • Process whereby those public acts become conventionalized in the practice of that individual and/or in the work of others.
498 J. Mostofo and R. Zambo
Background
Action research is any systematic inquiry by teacher-researchers for educational reform that gathers information about how well their students learn based on an innovation (Mills 2007; Somekh and Zeichner 2009). For this study, Jim imple- mented an action research model and collected qualitative data as the study pro- gressed. From past experience, Jim realized that his students’ transition from the college classroom to the public school classroom was not seamless. To help alleviate this problem, he chose to engage his students – six preservice secondary mathemat- ics teachers – in Lesson Study as part of their methods course. The primary purpose of the research was to determine the impact of using Lesson Study with preservice secondary mathematics teachers as they moved from teaching in a methods class- room to their field-experience classroom before they entered their student-teaching experience. The secondary purpose was to improve Jim’s own practice through innovation and systematic inquiry into it.
One purpose of action research is to better understand and improve one’s practice (McTaggart 1994; Somekh and Zeichner 2009) and ‘engage in a process of continuous improvement’ (Patthey and Thomas-Spiegel 2013, 482). As a teacher, Jim realized that his secondary mathematics class needed to improve for various rea- sons. First, there was little practice teaching in his class and none out in the field. He typically had allowed his students (preservice teachers) to plan and teach only one or two mini-lessons in class for the entire semester, which, on reflection, did not seem like enough practice to prepare them for student-teaching. Most of the class was centered on his teaching and modeling pedagogical-content strategies for mathe- matics instruction. Second, he did not have control over what his preservice teachers were asked to do in their field-experience (practicum) classrooms. They were required to observe a secondary mathematics classroom of their choice for a total of 15 hours during the semester. They would choose the school and teacher to observe, so there was no connection to his methods classroom. The preservice teachers would typically sit in the back of these secondary mathematics classrooms, observe the tea- cher and take notes. This did not provide any actual practice for the preservice teachers in a classroom setting that could serve as a bridge to their student-teaching.
Jim’s goal was to create an innovation that allowed preservice teachers the opportunity to teach more in the methods classroom before teaching in the field-ex- perience classroom and to systematically investigate the effect of this. He also wanted to connect his methods classroom to the field-experience classroom so the preservice teachers would be able to practice-teach the exact lessons in his class before teaching them in their field-experience classroom. He used Lesson Study as the vehicle for this innovation and set up a partnership with a local high school mathematics department. Overall, he wanted to use action research to become more ‘effective’ and ‘empowered’ as a methods instructor and researcher (Leitch and Day 2000, 183).
In many action research studies, the researcher and the practitioner are not the same person so their relationship is crucial (Postholm and Skrovset 2013). However, Jim’s role in this project was significant because he acted both as the practitioner and as the researcher throughout this action research study (Gay, Mills, and Airasian 2009). Some recent research argues that the role of a practitioner-researcher can serve many different purposes: individual professional development, school develop- ment, and knowledge generalized to other contexts (Oolbekkink-Marchand, van der
Educational Action Research 499
Steen, and Nijveldt 2014). For this study, Jim’s purpose was individual professional development to enact change and understand the effect of this intervention. He served as the instructor of the secondary mathematics methods class and formed the collaborative teams used for this study. He also monitored the progress of the preservice teachers during the collaborative planning and provided feedback on their lesson plans and mathematics plans (the mathematics plan included example prob- lems, handouts, and activities that were used).
As the researcher in this action research study, Jim acted as an observer, video- taping and taking field notes while the preservice teachers were teaching lessons in the methods classroom. During the debriefing sessions after a preservice teacher’s lesson, he took on more of a participant role as he facilitated the comments from the other preservice teachers and gave feedback based on his field notes. He coordinated the schedule with the field-experience school to schedule the teaching days for each collaborative team of preservice teachers. Between Lesson Study rounds, Jim taught pedagogical strategies as well as modeled lessons in the classroom. At the conclu- sion of the study, he oversaw the implementation of the methods and analyzed the data from the participants.
Lesson Study
Teaching mathematics in Japan has changed drastically in the past 50 years, while teaching mathematics in the United States has changed very little over the same time period (Stigler and Hiebert 1999). Mathematics teachers in Japan focus more on conceptual understanding of mathematics, whereas the tradition in US mathematics classrooms is to treat the learning of mathematics as memorization and practice (Geist 2000; Stigler and Hiebert 1999).
What might account for these differences? Some research indicates that Lesson Study has resulted in much of the change in Japanese classrooms (Lewis and Tsuchida 1998; Stigler and Hiebert 1999). Lesson Study is a process to improve stu- dents’ learning through improved instruction (Fernandez and Yoshida 2004; Lewis 2002; Stigler and Hiebert 1999). It is a teacher-led professional development that brings teachers and other educators together to study in depth the teaching and learning of a particular mathematical concept or process (Tolle 2010). The spirit of Lesson Study involves ‘collaborating with fellow teachers to plan, observe, and reflect on lessons’ (Takahashi and Yoshida 2004, 439).
Lesson Study was first introduced to American educators by Catherine C. Lewis and Ineko Tsuchida (1998) in their article ‘A Lesson is like a Swiftly Flowing River’ and later by James W. Stigler and James Hiebert (1999) in their book The Teaching Gap. Since that time, Lesson Study has been implemented in schools across the United States and it is finding its way into preservice teacher education. There is strong evidence that many aspects of the Lesson Study process can posi- tively impact preservice teachers. Lesson Study can provide the opportunity to build professional learning communities, deepen understanding of content and pedagogy, and develop habits of critical observation, analysis, and feedback (Chassels and Melville 2009; Chokshi and Fernandez 2004; Groth 2011; Tolle 2010). Allowing preservice teachers to re-teach lessons after receiving feedback and revising their les- son plans to incorporate the feedback has been shown to improve the quality of their lessons (Chassels and Melville 2009; Ganesh and Matteson 2010). Preservice teach- ers appreciated the insights that their peers provided while participating in Lesson
500 J. Mostofo and R. Zambo
Study (Chassels and Melville 2009). Observing lessons from their classmates enhanced preservice teachers’ skill in critiquing lessons as well as differentiating between effective and ineffective teaching strategi
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
