EDDFPX8040_Assessment_4

docx

School

Capella University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

8040

Subject

Sociology

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by MateGoldfinchMaster787

1 Action Research Study Report School of Public Service and Education, Capella University EDD-FPX8040: Research Design for Practitioners November 25, 2023

2 Introduction Improving students' mathematical skills has been an urgent emphasis in the United States, and one of the approaches to achieve this is to prepare teachers with better mathematical instruction. Mostofo and Zambo (2015) conducted an action research study to investigate the potential effectiveness of using Lesson Study to support preservice mathematics teachers' training. Action research is a systematic inquiry involving cycles of "Look-Think-Act" (Stringer & Aragón, 2020, p. 8) with stakeholders collaboratively to understand the problem of practice and reflect on the contextual factors toward developing solutions. Jim, the primary author of this action research study and an instructor of a methods course for preservice mathematics teachers, observed that many preservice teachers underestimated the complexity of actual classroom instruction and the need to develop habitual professional learning to hone their pedagogies. He believed preservice teachers needed opportunities to learn by doing through mentorship and coaching in low-stakes settings. As a doctoral student, Jim engaged in this action research to determine if the Japanese Lesson Study with preservice mathematics teachers might better prepare them to be more effective in classrooms (Mostofo & Zambo, 2015). Research Theory Framework Jim, acted as an investigative observer, implemented this action research by recruiting his preservice teachers enrolled in his methods course in an undergraduate teacher preparation program at a private university. Grounded with the Vygotsky Space as the theoretical framework, the stakeholders internalize the social practice, apply it in their context, and finally externalize the practice in other contexts (Gallucci et al., 2010, as cited in Mostofo & Zambo, 2015). Basing on the individuals' interaction and relationship, Jim relied on the collaborative efforts between the researcher and the consent participants actively engaged in an iterative

3 process of creating, field-testing, reflecting, revising, and reteaching lessons collaboratively as part of the course curriculum. Through the interactive stages, the process was to inform him of ways to improve his practice as a methods instructor and how the innovation of adopting Lesson Study would enhance preservice teachers' learning and experience (Mostofo & Zambo, 2015). 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? Vygotsky Space was appropriate for this action research study because the framework emphasizes the role of interaction between individual and collective actions and how it transforms from one setting to another. In Jim's methods course, he connected the preservice teachers' learned lessons and reflections through practice-teach experience based on Lesson Study in class in which the participants taught the revised lessons in their field-experience classroom. Through this iterative process in the action research, he collected data from the participants' reflections and researcher-participants post-field-teaching interviews to analyze the effect of applying Lesson Study and the participants' perceptions of having opportunities to teach in the methods course and receive feedback before teaching in the field classrooms (Mostofo & Zambo, 2015).

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

4 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? Collaboration among stakeholders brings diverse perspectives and experiences to enrich the action research process. When stakeholders rely on each other's expertise and contribution to investigate the problem, they take ownership of their goals and commit to leading them to reach the research outcomes. With stakeholders' understanding and involvement of the AIP, they provide support in their expertise, finance, and feedback for the project solutions. Methodology Jim's methods course was the only required mathematics methods course in the secondary education program at his university. The course met three times for 65 minutes each per week for 16 weeks. In addition to the class meetings, the preservice teachers enrolled in the courses were required to participate in 15 hours of field experience in a secondary school classroom. They were paired with a designated teacher to teach two lessons in the designated class. Of the eight preservice teachers enrolled in Jim's course, six of them agreed to participate in this study. These six participants were directly involved in Lesson Study to develop lessons and rehearse them collectively before teaching them in their field-experience classrooms. The Lesson Study process had two phases. The first phase consisted of the participants working in groups of three. They collectively developed a written lesson plan, including example algebra problems, worksheets, and activities. The lesson materials were emailed to Jim, who would provide feedback before one of them taught the lesson in the methods course. The preservice teacher who taught the lesson would reflect on the experience, followed by the group discussing the lesson with feedback and suggestions. Jim also gave feedback during the

5 discussion and modeled teaching the related course materials. After that, the group revised the lesson together. In the next class period, another preservice teacher in the group taught the lesson, and the group engaged in the same process with a debriefing discussion, modeled instruction by Jim, and the group's revision of the lesson plan. The second phase focused on preparing the participants for teaching in the field classroom in coordination with the designated teachers of the field classroom. The group engaged in the same process as in the first phase three times before they taught the lesson in the field classroom so that each of the participants in the same group had a chance to practice teaching the lesson in the methods course. Each participant in the group was assigned to teach in the field classroom on different days. Their lessons were observed and video-recorded by their teammates. The videos were shown in Jim's class and debriefed by the group, with feedback mirroring the process in the first phase (Mostofo & Zambo, 2015). Mostofo and Zambo's (2015) study involved two sets of qualitative data, the participants' weekly reflections and the semi-structured post-teaching interviews with the the researcher. The participants' weekly reflections were open-ended questions set up by Jim to elicit their perspectives on the Lesson Study process and perceptions of their progress. The semi-structured post-teaching interviews between Jim and the participants were scripted. The two sets of qualitative data of participants' weekly reflections and researcher-participants interview scripts yielded a total of 47 and 30 double-spaced typed pages, respectively. Jim's roles as both the researcher and the practitioner of the methods course where the six participants were enrolled put him in a positionality in the action research a subjective one, yet his expertise and commitment to improving preservice mathematics teachers' preparation empowered him and the participants to result in professional growth in arriving at practical

6 solutions. With the voluntary consent from the six participants, the researcher and participants acknowledged their beliefs and experiences in the research topic that can be valuable and enriching in the data set and analysis in action research (Stringer & Aragón, 2020). The validity of data was accounted for when both researchers independently open-coded the data and collapsed the codes into categories. This cross-checking ensured accuracy and consistency of the researchers' coding into inferring themes and assertions presented in the data analysis (Mostofo & Zambo, 2015). 3. What are your reflections on collecting and analyzing qualitative data to demonstrate the impact of a potential AIP? In the data analysis part of action research, researchers may take advantage of the valuable perspectives and expertise of stakeholders and participants in the study to draw pertinent insights that inform the research process and findings. However, triangulating multiple sources of data and member checking the initial analysis of findings may help to validate accuracy. It is important for action researchers to reflect on their positionality to reduce the risk of bias and maintain objectivity and credibility of sound interpretations. Results The two sets of data were analyzed separately. The data from the participants' weekly reflections revealed three themes and assertions: building confidence, collaborative planning, and observation of instruction. In the first assertion of building confidence, participants reported that they gradually built confidence in the first phase, and their statements showed more significant confidence in the second phase in the field-experience classroom. For collaborative planning, the participants initially had difficulty collaborating to develop a lesson plan when they presented diverse perspectives, but they thrived and tried their best to incorporate different ideas.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

7 Therefore, the participants may have encountered difficulty in collaborative planning, but it was beneficial for lesson quality regardless of issues around working together. The findings showed that the participants found observing their peers' and instructor's instruction helpful while learning different teaching techniques that improved their reflective practice, instruction, and confidence (Mostofo & Zambo, 2015). From the data set derived from the semi-structured interviews, three themes and assertions surfaced: collaborative planning, growth in confidence and efficacy, and real practice teaching experience. The participants found sharing different ideas a valuable opportunity to learn from each other. They realized that anticipating student misconceptions of a mathematic concept turned out to be essential in lesson planning. They found that collaborative planning, as the first assertion, improved the lesson quality. For the second theme and assertion, the participants validated their growth of confidence and teaching efficacy as they engaged in the Lesson Study process throughout their practice teaching within their group and in the field- experience classroom. Finally, the third assertion around practice teaching within their group in the methods course provided them a safe space to practice. It was critical for the preservice teachers to accumulate their experience. In addition, the planning and teaching process favorably enhanced the preservice teachers' real-life practice (Mostofo & Zambo, 2015). 4. Was the data analysis sufficient to verify the impact of the intervention? Why or why not? The data analysis was sufficient to verify the impact of the intervention. The findings based on the participants' weekly reflections and responses from the semi-structured interviews confirmed that Lesson Study positively supported preservice teachers' efficacy.

8 Discussion/Conclusion Mostofo and Zambo (2015) found that Lesson Study had a significant impact on preservice teachers' efficacy; their findings fit into the systems literature in confirming Sibbald's similar findings (2009), Jim's inquiry of the bridge between practice teaching in the methods course and field experience classroom, and Lewis' (2009) three categories of growth. Like Sibbald's (2009) study also adopting Lesson Study, the findings in both studies aligned how collaborative planning, reflective practice, and practice teaching improved the efficacy of preservice teacher teaching. A strength of this study is that it can be easily duplicated to validate results. Moreover, while Jim's study confirmed the positive impact of Lesson Study in preservice teacher training in mathematics, it can also be duplicated in preservice teaching in other content subjects. On the contrary, a limitation of this action research is the rather small sample size of participants, and the limited amount of data may limit the generalizability of the findings beyond this context studied. One of the issues Jim critiqued in the practice of the methods course was that the preservice teachers did not make any connection between the methods course and their field experience. Therefore, one of the goals of this innovation with Lesson Study was to facilitate the bridge between the practice teaching in different settings, the methods classroom, and the field experience. The findings showed the preservice teachers' positive feedback in acknowledging the scaffolding of practice teaching, reflection, incorporation of feedback, revision of lesson plan, and reteaching showed a strong influence on their confidence and learning other teaching techniques. More importantly, the findings showed this scaffolding of teaching practice transformed from the safe space of the methods classroom to actual teaching practices in the field-experience classroom, also confirming Vygotsky's Space framework. This area of findings aligned with Vygotsky's Space and Lesson Study in validating the importance of establishing a

9 connection between the methods course and field experience teaching in the design of preservice teacher programming. The confirmation of Vygotsky's Space and the application of Lesson Study means the couple of the innovation and theoretical framework complemented the positive outcomes; however, it is not clear if participants were asked to perform member checking to confirm if the results confirmed their perception. Lastly, Lewis' (2009) findings in the three areas of growth also aligned with Mostofo and Zambo's (2015) assertion in the results of the data analysis. The findings for both studies confirmed that participants recognized that interpersonal relationships and collaboration contributed to the growth of knowledge and pedagogical skills. The results of Jim's action research helped him improve his practice as the methods course instructor and produce knowledge that was meant to be shared with other educators (Somekh & Zeichner, 2009, as cited in Mostofo & Zambo, 2015). Mostofo and Zambo's (2015) findings confirmed the first three stages of Vygotsky's Space, from appropriating individuals' thinking through interaction with others, transforming what they learn from others into owning their work, to performing their work. The future recommendations of Mostofo and Zambo's (2015) research would be to extend preservice teachers with the ability to move to the last stage of Vygotsky's Space to conventionalize the learned pedagogy in other contexts. Perhaps a follow-up survey with the participants may be appropriate to confirm the study findings and inquire if the participants conventionalize their experience in the methods course and if field experience exemplifies their pedagogies in the real-life workplace. With Mostofo and Zambo's (2015) findings in applying Lesson Study based on Vygotsky's Space theoretical framework to investigate the efficacy of preservice teacher training, Mostofo and Zambo are better informed about identifying and refining the application of Lesson

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

10 Study in future preservice teaching training. This action research process sheds light on how well Jim's current practice of implementing Lesson Study has made a positive difference in the preservice teachers' learning outcomes, as signified by their reported boost of confidence and actual teaching experience. This demonstrated impact will be convincing evidence and support for future enhancement of the preservice teacher programming design. 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? The action research shows a valuable example of how action research is done and recorded. It provides a model for how a researcher identifies a problem of practice and incorporates theoretical frameworks and innovation to design action research. The documentation of the process, methodology, data collection, data analysis, and discussions of results and implications is very helpful in shaping a future AIP.

11 References 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. & Aragón, A. O. (2020). Action research: A handbook for practitioners (5 th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc. (US). https://capella.vitalsource.com/books/9781544355931

EDDFPX8040_Assessment_4

Related Documents