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

This study reveals major problems concerning conducting QCAR for a group of Thai in-service science teachers and presents the effectiveness of the QCAR workshop in promoting the participating science teachers’ understanding of QCAR and positive attitudes to CAR. Interestingly, the most problem for science teachers is writing a QCAR report rather than conducting QCAR. This is contrast with the problems found by Cox (2012) i.e. identifying and judging problem for investigation and a tendency to formulate hypotheses rather than research questions. The strong emphasis on research report for the participants in this study may reflect one culture for Thai science teachers i.e. placing more value on a product of research than learning during a process of conducting research.

Supported with Megowan-Romanowicz (2010), one major concern reflected by the science teachers is time. Teaching is already a full time job. Many teachers prefer quantitative research such as a survey research more than qualitative research because it demands less time from them. Therefore, effective time-management in conducting QCAR is regarded as one topic should be included in the next version of the QCAR workshop.

Many science teachers open their minds for qualitative research and present more positive attitude to qualitative research that might encourage them to further conduct QCAR in their classrooms to improve their teaching and students’ learning. As Cox-Petersen (2001) stated, CAR empowers teachers to actively engage for improving instruction in their own classrooms. It provides real evidence to support changes in science instruction and to participate in on-going professional development. Regarding the findings from this study, QCAR should be promoted to be an essential form of professional development for science teachers nationwide and worldwide. As Llewellyn and Zee (2010) asserted that CAR is becoming a worthy form of professional development that a) is research-based,(b) centers on authentic and genuine inquiry, c) is data-driven,(d) bridges theory and practice, and(e) is collegial and collaborate (Llewellyn & Zee, 2010). Ultimately, policymakers should accept and promote QCAR as one alternative approach for teachers to understand their classrooms and for themselves in building their policy knowledge to serve more diverse range of stakeholders and audiences (Dumas & Anderson, 2014).

The findings from this study lead to the improvement of the QCAR workshop in many aspects: adding the topic of effective time-management; adding the collaborative part; and extending from three-day workshop to a long-term, continuous workshop (as suggested by Goodnough (2010)). The QCAR workshop presented in this study can be used to promote teachers’ understanding for conducting the QCAR. However, first of all, the importance of the QCAR should be clearly communicated to teachers and teachers should prioritize conducting QCAR for improving their teaching and students’ learning. The support from school administrators is also important (Kyei-Blankson, 2013). In addition, the university lecturers can collaborate in the QCAR workshop as genuine partnerships who help teachers build successful QCAR by providing respectful and critical dialogue (Gewirtza, Shapirob, Maguirea, Mahonyc & Cribba, 2009).