The development of qualitative classroom action research workshop for in-service science teachers

Action research (AR) is defined as “…a form of self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their own practices, their understanding of these practices, and the situations in which their practices are carried out" (Carr & Kemmis, 1986, p. 162). When AR is conducted by a teacher, it is called “classroom action research” (CAR). To conduct CAR, teachers identify their problems or areas for improvement, and address them through the practices of inquiry, action, reflection, and sharing (Capobianco & Feldman, 2010).

The literature suggests the benefits of the CAR for both the teachers and their students. The benefits for the teachers who conducted CAR include deepening understanding about student thinking and learning (Cox-Petersen, 2001; Megowan-Romanowicz, 2010), changing wisdom about teaching and learning (Megowan-Romanowicz, 2010), enhancing confidence in teaching ability (Llewellyn & Zee, 2010; Megowan-Romanowicz, 2010), transforming attitudes and beliefs about student learning (Llewellyn & Zee, 2010), taking more responsibility in inquiry about teaching (Goodnough, 2010; Kyei-Blankson, 2013), changing of teaching roles and practice (Cox-Petersen, 2001; Subramaniam, 2010), bridging theory into classroom practice (Goodnough, 2010; Kyei-Blankson, 2013), being more open to new teaching strategies (Kyei-Blankson, 2013), being eager to discuss and share research findings (Kyei-Blankson, 2013), renewing commitment to teaching profession (Megowan-Romanowicz, 2010), and providing authentic teacher professional development (Cox-Petersen, 2001). Also, the students benefit from participate in teaching innovations employed by their teachers during the CAR.

Qualitative classroom action research (QCAR) is now regarded as an alternative approach to serve teachers with more understanding about increasingly complex classroom contexts. The QCAR focuses on context, use of an emergent design and thick description (Sallee & Flood, 2012). It is an inductive approach that can help teachers get deep range of data in their classrooms and provide an ongoing, reiterative process of data generation, analysis, reflection, and action (Klehr, 2012). Qualitative research helps teachers understand their students through the students’ eyes, take contexts students bounded with into account, emphasize more on process, and develop grounded theories (Bryman, 2004). The popularity of qualitative research is increasing as the analysis of the papers published in three outstanding science education journals during 2006-2008 revealed that the qualitative approach was used most frequently, followed by quantitative and mixed approach (Devetak, Glazar & Vogrinc, 2010).

The literature presents that QCAR benefits teachers in generating more questions about school works and committing to better understanding of teaching practice (Gratch, 2002), deeply scrutinizing the gap of teaching and conducting on-going investigations of teaching and learning (Mitchener & Jackson, 2012), developing content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge (Halai, 2012), and enriching in-depth information to inform teaching and policy (Sallee & Flood, 2012).

Although the QCAR has potential to illuminate some educational dilemmas and provide in-depth perspectives regarding marginalized or unrepresented educational practices, teachers may face several problems in conducting QCAR as weak qualitative research skills e.g. gathering data, building rapport in the field, addressing subjectivity and ethical dilemmas, and complying with institutional review board requirements (Cox, 2012), the privilege of quantitative measurements and experimental research designs in the current policy discourse that forces teachers to think quantitatively rather than qualitatively (Cox, 2012), and time-consuming in conducting qualitative research (Sallee & Flood, 2012). Also, the qualitative research is seen being less relevant for policymakers because it does not provide prescriptions for best practices or claim to offer “proof” of policy outcomes (Dumas & Anderson, 2014). Regarding this, at best, qualitative research is described as a valuable addition to quantitative models in the form of mixed methods research.

In-service science teachers in Thailand have been mandated to conduct the CAR to improve teaching and learning since 1999 as mentioned in the Section 30 of the National Education Act B.E. 2542 (1999) and Amendments (Second National Education Act B.E. 2545 (2002)).

Educational institutions shall develop effective learning processes. In so doing, they shall also encourage instructors to carry out research for developing suitable learning for learners at different levels of education (Office of the National Education Commission, 2002, p. 13).

In conducting CAR, teachers can use either quantitative or qualitative research methods. However, most of the Thai in-service science teachers are not familiar with qualitative research. This situation impedes science teachers’ ability to conduct the CAR for answering a wide range of research questions especially qualitative research questions. Therefore, this study aims to promote Thai in-service science teachers’ more understanding for conducting QCAR.

Research questions

What are the in-service science teachers’ problems concerning CAR?
What are the effects of the QCAR workshop on the in-service science teachers’ understanding of and attitudes to QCAR?