Innovating Science Teaching by Participatory Action Research – Reflections from an Interdisciplinary Project of Curriculum Innovation on Teaching about Climate Change
Keywords:
Climate change, Curriculum innovation, Participatory action research, Science education
Abstract
This paper describes a three-year curriculum innovation project on teaching about climate change. The innovation for this study focused on a socio-critical approach towards teaching climate change in four different teaching domains (biology, chemistry, physics and politics). The teaching itself explicitly aimed at general educational objectives, i.e., fostering students’ communication and evaluation abilities as essential components for preparing young people for active participation in society. Participatory Action Research has been used as a collaborative strategy of cyclical curriculum innovation and research. Using past experiences and selected results from accompanying research, this project and its methodology will be reflected upon from the viewpoint of the chemistry group taking part in the project. Core issues reflected upon include how the project contributed to the creation of feasible curriculum materials, how it led to innovative structures in practice, and whether it supported experienced teachers’ ongoing professional development. General considerations for the process of curriculum innovation will also be derived.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Altheide, D., & Johnson, J. (1994). Criteria for Assessing Interpretative Validity in
Qualitative Research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research
(pp. 485-499). Newsbury Park: Sage.
Altrichter, H., & Gstettner, P. (1993). Action Research: A Closed Chapter in the History of
German School Science. Educational Action Research, 1, 325-360.
Andersson, B., & Wallin, A. (2000). Students’ Understanding of the Greenhouse Effect,
Social Consequences of Reducing CO2 Emissions and Why Ozone Layer Depletion is a
Problem. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 1096-1111.
Bencze, L., & Hodson, D. (1999). Changing Practice By Changing Practice: Toward More
Authentic Science and Science Curriculum Development. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 36, 521-539.
Bodner, G., MacIsaac, D., & White, S. (1999). Action Research: Overcoming the Sports
Mentality Approach to Assessment/Evaluation. University Chemistry Education, 3(1),
31-36.
Boyes, E., Skamp, K., & Stanisstreet, M. (2009). Australian Secondary Students’ Views
About Global Warming: Beliefs About Actions, and Willingness to Act. Research in
Science Education, 39, 661-680.
Boyes, E., & Stanisstreet, M. (1993). The Greenhouse Effect: Children’s Perceptions of
Causes, Consequences and Cures. International Journal of Science Education, 15, 531-552.
Boyes, E., & Stanisstreet, M. (1997). Children’s Models of Understanding of Two Major
Global Environmental Issues (Ozone Layer and Greenhouse Effect). Research in Science &
Technological Education, 15, 19-28.
Eilks, I. (2000). Promoting Scientific and Technological Literacy: Teaching Biodiesel.
Science Education International, 11(1), 16-21.
Eilks, I. (2002). Teaching ‘Biodiesel’: A Socio-Critical and Problem-Oriented Approach to
Chemistry Teaching, and Students’ First Views on It. Chemical Education: Research and
Practice in Europe, 3, 67-75.
Eilks, I. (2003). Cooperative Curriculum Development in a Project of Participatory
Action Research Within Chemical Education: Teachers’ Reflections. Science Education
International, 14(4), 41-49.
Eilks, I., Feierabend, T., Hößle, C., Höttecke, D., Menthe, J., Mrochen, M., & Oelgeklaus,
H. (2011a). Bewerten Lernen und Klimawandel in vier Fächern – Erste Einblicke in das
Projekt „Der Klimawandel vor Gericht“. Der Mathematische und Naturwissenschaftliche
Unterricht, 64, 7-11 and 71-76.
Eilks, I., Feierabend, T., Hößle, C., Höttecke, D., Menthe, J., Mrochen, M., & Oelgeklaus,
H. (2011b). Der Klimawandel vor Gericht – Unterrichtmaterialien für den Fachunterricht
und fächerübergreifende Projekte. Köln: Aulis-Starck in print.
Eilks, I., Markic, S., & Witteck, T. (2010). Collaborative Innovation of the Science
Classroom by Participatory Action Research – Theory and Practice in a Project of
Implementing Cooperative Learning Methods in Chemistry Education. In M. ValenÄiÄ
Zuljan, & J. Vogrinc (Eds.), Facilitating Effective Student Learning Through Teacher
Research and Innovation (pp. 77-101). Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana.
Eilks, I., & Ralle, B. (2002). Participatory Action Research in Chemical Education. In B.
Ralle, & I. Eilks (Eds.), Research in Chemical Education - What does this mean? (pp. 87-
98). Aachen: Shaker.
Ekborg, M., & Areskoug, M. (2006). How Student Teachers’ Understanding of the
Greenhouse Effect Develops During a Teacher Education Programme. NorDiNa - Nordic
Studies in Science Education, 5, 17-29.
Feierabend, T., & Eilks, I. (2010). Raising Students’ Perception of the Relevance of Science
Teaching and Promoting Communication and Evaluation Capabilities Using Authentic
and Controversial Socio-Scientific Issues in the Framework of Climate Change. Science
Education International, 21, 176-196.
Feierabend, T., & Eilks, I. (2011). Teaching the Societal Dimension of Chemistry Along
a Socio-Critical and Problem-Oriented Lesson Plan on the Use of Bioethanol. Journal of
Chemical Education, accepted for publication.
Feierabend, T., Jokmin, S., & Eilks, I. (2011). Chemistry Teachers’ Views on Teaching
‘Climate Change’ – An Interview Case Study From Research-Oriented Learning in
Teacher Education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 11, 85-91.
Feldman, A. (1996). Enhancing the Practice of Physics Teachers: Mechanisms for the
Generation and Sharing of Knowledge and Understanding in Collaborative Action
Research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 513-540.
Haney, J. J., Czerniak, C. M., & Lumpe, A. T. (1996). Teacher Beliefs and Intentions
Regarding the Implementation of Science Education Reform Strands. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 33, 971-993.
Hansen, P. J. K. (2010). Knowledge about the Greenhouse Effect and the Effects of the
Ozone Layer Among Norwegian Pupils Finishing Compulsory Education in 1989, 1993
and 2005 - What Now? International Journal of Science Education, 32, 397-419.
Hofstein, A., Eilks, I., & Bybee, R. (2011). Societal Issues and their Importance for
Contemporary Science Education: A Pedagogical Justification and the State of the Art in
Israel, Germany and the USA. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,
published online January 2011.
Hulme, M. (2009). Why We Disagree about Climate Change. Understanding Controversy,
Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
IPCC (2007). Climate Change 2007 – The Physical Science Basis. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Höttecke, D., Hößle, C., Eilks, I., Menthe, J., Mrochen, M., Oelgeklaus, H., & Feierabend,
T. (2010). Judgment and Decision-Making about Socio-Scientific Issues: A Fundament for
a Cross-Faculty Approach Towards Learning about Climate Change. In I. Eilks, & B. Ralle
(Eds.), Contemporary Science Education (pp. 179-192). Aachen: Shaker.
Huberman, M. (1993). Linking the Practitioner and Researcher Communities for School
Improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvements, 4, 1-16.
Klafki, W. (2000). The Significance of Classical Theories of Bildung for a Contemporary
Concept of Allgemeinbildung. In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann, & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching
as Reflective Practice. The German Didaktik Tradition (pp. 85-107). Mahwah: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Marks, R., & Eilks, I. (2009). Promoting Scientific Literacy Using a Socio-Critical and
Problem-Oriented Approach in Chemistry Education: Concept, Examples, Experiences.
International Journal of Environmental and Science Education 4, 131-145.
Marks, R., & Eilks, I. (2010). Research-Based Development of a Lesson Plan on Shower
Gels and Musk Fragrances Following a Socio-Critical and Problem-Oriented Approach to
Chemistry Teaching. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 11, 129-141.
Mayring, P. (2002). Qualitative Content Analysis - Research Instrument or Mode
of Interpretation? In M. Kiegelmann (Ed.), The Role of the Researcher in Qualitative
Psychology (pp. 139-148). Tübingen: Ingeborg Huber.
McIntyre, D. (2005). Bridging the Gap between Research and Practice. Cambridge Journal
of Education, 35, 357-382.
Parke, H. M., & Coble, C. R. (1997). Teachers Designing Curriculum as Professional
Development: A Model for Transformational Science Teaching. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 34, 773-790.
Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do New Views of Knowledge and Thinking
Have to Say about Research on Teacher Learning? Educational Researcher, 29, 4-15.
Rickinson, M. (2001). Learners and Learning in Environmental Education: A Critical
Review of the Evidence. Environmental Education Research, 7, 207-316.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal Reasoning Regarding Socio-Scientific Issues: A Critical
Review of Research. Journal of Research Science Teaching, 41, 513–536.
Whyte, W. F., Greenwood, D. J., & Lazes, P. (1989). Participatory Action Research. The
American Behavioural Scientist, 32, 513-551.
Qualitative Research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research
(pp. 485-499). Newsbury Park: Sage.
Altrichter, H., & Gstettner, P. (1993). Action Research: A Closed Chapter in the History of
German School Science. Educational Action Research, 1, 325-360.
Andersson, B., & Wallin, A. (2000). Students’ Understanding of the Greenhouse Effect,
Social Consequences of Reducing CO2 Emissions and Why Ozone Layer Depletion is a
Problem. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 1096-1111.
Bencze, L., & Hodson, D. (1999). Changing Practice By Changing Practice: Toward More
Authentic Science and Science Curriculum Development. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 36, 521-539.
Bodner, G., MacIsaac, D., & White, S. (1999). Action Research: Overcoming the Sports
Mentality Approach to Assessment/Evaluation. University Chemistry Education, 3(1),
31-36.
Boyes, E., Skamp, K., & Stanisstreet, M. (2009). Australian Secondary Students’ Views
About Global Warming: Beliefs About Actions, and Willingness to Act. Research in
Science Education, 39, 661-680.
Boyes, E., & Stanisstreet, M. (1993). The Greenhouse Effect: Children’s Perceptions of
Causes, Consequences and Cures. International Journal of Science Education, 15, 531-552.
Boyes, E., & Stanisstreet, M. (1997). Children’s Models of Understanding of Two Major
Global Environmental Issues (Ozone Layer and Greenhouse Effect). Research in Science &
Technological Education, 15, 19-28.
Eilks, I. (2000). Promoting Scientific and Technological Literacy: Teaching Biodiesel.
Science Education International, 11(1), 16-21.
Eilks, I. (2002). Teaching ‘Biodiesel’: A Socio-Critical and Problem-Oriented Approach to
Chemistry Teaching, and Students’ First Views on It. Chemical Education: Research and
Practice in Europe, 3, 67-75.
Eilks, I. (2003). Cooperative Curriculum Development in a Project of Participatory
Action Research Within Chemical Education: Teachers’ Reflections. Science Education
International, 14(4), 41-49.
Eilks, I., Feierabend, T., Hößle, C., Höttecke, D., Menthe, J., Mrochen, M., & Oelgeklaus,
H. (2011a). Bewerten Lernen und Klimawandel in vier Fächern – Erste Einblicke in das
Projekt „Der Klimawandel vor Gericht“. Der Mathematische und Naturwissenschaftliche
Unterricht, 64, 7-11 and 71-76.
Eilks, I., Feierabend, T., Hößle, C., Höttecke, D., Menthe, J., Mrochen, M., & Oelgeklaus,
H. (2011b). Der Klimawandel vor Gericht – Unterrichtmaterialien für den Fachunterricht
und fächerübergreifende Projekte. Köln: Aulis-Starck in print.
Eilks, I., Markic, S., & Witteck, T. (2010). Collaborative Innovation of the Science
Classroom by Participatory Action Research – Theory and Practice in a Project of
Implementing Cooperative Learning Methods in Chemistry Education. In M. ValenÄiÄ
Zuljan, & J. Vogrinc (Eds.), Facilitating Effective Student Learning Through Teacher
Research and Innovation (pp. 77-101). Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana.
Eilks, I., & Ralle, B. (2002). Participatory Action Research in Chemical Education. In B.
Ralle, & I. Eilks (Eds.), Research in Chemical Education - What does this mean? (pp. 87-
98). Aachen: Shaker.
Ekborg, M., & Areskoug, M. (2006). How Student Teachers’ Understanding of the
Greenhouse Effect Develops During a Teacher Education Programme. NorDiNa - Nordic
Studies in Science Education, 5, 17-29.
Feierabend, T., & Eilks, I. (2010). Raising Students’ Perception of the Relevance of Science
Teaching and Promoting Communication and Evaluation Capabilities Using Authentic
and Controversial Socio-Scientific Issues in the Framework of Climate Change. Science
Education International, 21, 176-196.
Feierabend, T., & Eilks, I. (2011). Teaching the Societal Dimension of Chemistry Along
a Socio-Critical and Problem-Oriented Lesson Plan on the Use of Bioethanol. Journal of
Chemical Education, accepted for publication.
Feierabend, T., Jokmin, S., & Eilks, I. (2011). Chemistry Teachers’ Views on Teaching
‘Climate Change’ – An Interview Case Study From Research-Oriented Learning in
Teacher Education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 11, 85-91.
Feldman, A. (1996). Enhancing the Practice of Physics Teachers: Mechanisms for the
Generation and Sharing of Knowledge and Understanding in Collaborative Action
Research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 513-540.
Haney, J. J., Czerniak, C. M., & Lumpe, A. T. (1996). Teacher Beliefs and Intentions
Regarding the Implementation of Science Education Reform Strands. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 33, 971-993.
Hansen, P. J. K. (2010). Knowledge about the Greenhouse Effect and the Effects of the
Ozone Layer Among Norwegian Pupils Finishing Compulsory Education in 1989, 1993
and 2005 - What Now? International Journal of Science Education, 32, 397-419.
Hofstein, A., Eilks, I., & Bybee, R. (2011). Societal Issues and their Importance for
Contemporary Science Education: A Pedagogical Justification and the State of the Art in
Israel, Germany and the USA. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,
published online January 2011.
Hulme, M. (2009). Why We Disagree about Climate Change. Understanding Controversy,
Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
IPCC (2007). Climate Change 2007 – The Physical Science Basis. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Höttecke, D., Hößle, C., Eilks, I., Menthe, J., Mrochen, M., Oelgeklaus, H., & Feierabend,
T. (2010). Judgment and Decision-Making about Socio-Scientific Issues: A Fundament for
a Cross-Faculty Approach Towards Learning about Climate Change. In I. Eilks, & B. Ralle
(Eds.), Contemporary Science Education (pp. 179-192). Aachen: Shaker.
Huberman, M. (1993). Linking the Practitioner and Researcher Communities for School
Improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvements, 4, 1-16.
Klafki, W. (2000). The Significance of Classical Theories of Bildung for a Contemporary
Concept of Allgemeinbildung. In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann, & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching
as Reflective Practice. The German Didaktik Tradition (pp. 85-107). Mahwah: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Marks, R., & Eilks, I. (2009). Promoting Scientific Literacy Using a Socio-Critical and
Problem-Oriented Approach in Chemistry Education: Concept, Examples, Experiences.
International Journal of Environmental and Science Education 4, 131-145.
Marks, R., & Eilks, I. (2010). Research-Based Development of a Lesson Plan on Shower
Gels and Musk Fragrances Following a Socio-Critical and Problem-Oriented Approach to
Chemistry Teaching. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 11, 129-141.
Mayring, P. (2002). Qualitative Content Analysis - Research Instrument or Mode
of Interpretation? In M. Kiegelmann (Ed.), The Role of the Researcher in Qualitative
Psychology (pp. 139-148). Tübingen: Ingeborg Huber.
McIntyre, D. (2005). Bridging the Gap between Research and Practice. Cambridge Journal
of Education, 35, 357-382.
Parke, H. M., & Coble, C. R. (1997). Teachers Designing Curriculum as Professional
Development: A Model for Transformational Science Teaching. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 34, 773-790.
Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do New Views of Knowledge and Thinking
Have to Say about Research on Teacher Learning? Educational Researcher, 29, 4-15.
Rickinson, M. (2001). Learners and Learning in Environmental Education: A Critical
Review of the Evidence. Environmental Education Research, 7, 207-316.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal Reasoning Regarding Socio-Scientific Issues: A Critical
Review of Research. Journal of Research Science Teaching, 41, 513–536.
Whyte, W. F., Greenwood, D. J., & Lazes, P. (1989). Participatory Action Research. The
American Behavioural Scientist, 32, 513-551.
Published
2011-03-31
How to Cite
Feierabend, T., & Eilks, I. (2011). Innovating Science Teaching by Participatory Action Research – Reflections from an Interdisciplinary Project of Curriculum Innovation on Teaching about Climate Change. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 1(1), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.442
Section
FOCUS
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors are confirming that they are the authors of the submitted article, which will be published online in the Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal (for short: CEPS Journal) by University of Ljubljana Press (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, Kardeljeva ploščad 16, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia). The Author’s/Authors’ name(s) will be evident in the article in the journal. All decisions regarding layout and distribution of the work are in the hands of the publisher.
- The Authors guarantee that the work is their own original creation and does not infringe any statutory or common-law copyright or any proprietary right of any third party. In case of claims by third parties, authors commit themselves to defend the interests of the publisher, and shall cover any potential costs.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
