An (Distinctive) Example of Strengtening a Validity: Self-evaluation of the School Based Action Research

Abstract

It is important to evaluate any research effort in order to see if it is scientifically based research. It is much easier to analyze someone else’s work. As action researchers, the researchers are insiders of their research efforts. On the other hand, self-evaluation of one’s own research effort would strengthen the research process and provide strong basis for the future research efforts. The author has focused on the self-evaluation of the action research directed by herself. Utilizing the evaluation schema offered by Malone (2014) she aims to prompt enhanced understanding about the evaluation of action research project. In conclusion, it could be approved that the schema offered by Malone is comprehensive and valid tool for evaluation action research projects. In the light of this schema the analyzed action research project is considered as scientifically based research. The author recommends the other researchers utilize this schema to evaluate their action research project.

Keywords

• Self-evaluation,school based implementation,action research

Geçerliği Güçlendirme Örneği: Okul Temelli Eylem Araştırması Projesinin Öz Değerlendirmesi

Öz

Herhangi bir araştırma projesinin bilimsel temelli olup olmadığını anlamak için değerlendirmek önemlidir. Bir başkasının araştırmasını analiz etmek çok daha kolaydır. Eylem araştırmacıları kendi araştırmalarının içinde yer alır. Öte yandan, kişinin kendi araştırma gayretlerinin öz değerlendirmesini yapması araştırma sürecini güçlendirir ve ileri araştırmalar için kuvvetli temel sağlar. Yazar kendi yönettiği bir eylem araştırmasının öz değerlendirmesine odaklanmıştır. Malone (2014) tarafından önerilen değerlendirme şemasını kullanarak eylem araştırması projelerinin değerlendirmesi için gelişmiş bir anlayış oluşturmaya çalışmaktadır. Sonuç olarak, Malone tarafından önerilen şemanın kapsamlı ve geçerli bir araç olduğu kabul edilebilir. Bu şemanın ışığında analiz edilen eylem araştırmasının bilimsel temelli bir araştırma olduğu görülmüştür. Araştırmacı diğer araştırmacılara eylem araştırmalarını değerlendirmeleri için bu şemayı kullanmalarını önermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Öz değerlendirme,okul temelli uygulama,eylem araştırması

References

1. Albertini, J. A., & Schley, S. (2003). Characteristics, instruction, and assessment. M. Marschark, P.E. Spencer (Eds.). In Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language and education (p. 123-135). New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Alkan, C., Dogan, H. ve Sezgin, I. (2001). Mesleki ve teknik eğitimin esasları. Ankara: Nobel Yayınevi. Altrichter, H. (1999). Quality features of an action research. Change: Transformations in Education, 2(1), 1-11.
3. Asselin, M. (1999). Balanced literacy. Teacher Librarian, 27(1). Retrieved from http:/web11.epnet.com/citation.asp?tb=1& ug=sid+A0737BC4%2D52EF%2D491A…October 16, 2004.
4. Brantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klinger, J., Pugach, M., & Richardson, V. (2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 195-207.
5. Cambra, C. (1994). An instructional program approach to improve hearing impaired adolescents’ narratives: A pilot study. The Volta Review, 96(3), 237-246.
6. Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., & Kameenui, E. J. (1997). Direct instruction reading. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
7. Creswell, J.W. (2005). Educational research: planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
8. DeVito, J. A. (1989). The interpersonal communication book. New York: Harper&Row.

9. Dobert, M.L. (1984). Ethnographic research. Theory and application for modern schools and societies. New York, NY: Praeger Publishers.
10. Eisenhart, M., & Towne, L. (2003). Contestation and change in national policy on "scientifically based" education research. Educational Researcher, 32(7), 31-38.
11. Eisner, E. W. & Peshkin, A. (1990). Qualitative inquiry in education. New York: Teachers College Press. Ferrance, E. (2000). Action research. LAB, Inc.
12. Goodman, K. (1986). What’s hole in whole language. Portsmouth NH: Heinemann Educational Books.
13. Griffith, L. P., & Ripich, D. (1988). Story structure recall in hearing impaired, learning disabled and nondisabled children. American Annals of the Deaf, 133(1), 43-50.
14. Griffith, P. L., Ripich, D. N., & Dastoli, S. L. (1990). Narrative abilities in hearing impaired children: Propositions and cohesion. American Annals of the Deaf, 135(1), 14-21.
15. Gunning, T. G. (2003). Creating literacy instruction for all children. USA: Pearson Education, Inc.
16. Hagood, B. F. (1997). Reading and writing with story grammar. Teaching Exceptional Children, 29(4), 10-14.
17. Hammermeister, F. K., & Israelita, K. N. (1983). Reading instruction for the hearing impaired: An integrated language arts approach. The Volta Review, 85(3), 136-148.
18. Harris, S.R. (2003). In their own words. The language experience approach: A method to reach reluctant or struggling readers. Retrieved from http://www.literacyconnections.com /InTheirOwnWords~ns4.html.
19. Heefner, D. L., & Carson, S. P. (1996). Assessing the written narratives of deaf students using the six-trait analytical scale. The Volta Review, 98(1), 147-167.
20. Hoyt, L. (1999). Revisit, reflect, retell. Strategies for improving reading comprehension. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.
21. Hughes, D., McGillivray, L., & Schmidek, M. (1997). Guide to narrative language: Procedures for assessment. Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publication.
22. Johnson, P.A. (2002). A short guide to action research. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
23. Kameenui, E. J., & Simmons, D. C. (1990). Designing instructional strategies: The prevention of academic learning problems. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
24. King, C. M., & Quigley, S. P. (1985). Reading and deafness. London College-Hill Press, Inc.
25. Kretschmer, R. R., & Kretschmer, L. W. (1978). Language development and intervention with the hearing impaired. Baltimore: University Park Press.
26. Lovitt, T. C. (1995). Tactics for teaching. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
27. Malone, G. E. (2014). Evaluating action research. In Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (5th ed.). G. E. Mills (Ed.). USA: Pearson Education Inc.
28. Maxwell, J. M. (2005). Qualitative research design and interactive approach (2nd ed). London: SAGE.
29. Metsala, J. L., & Wharton-McDonald, R. (1997). Effective primary-grades literacy instruction. Reading Teacher. 50(6). Retrieved from http://web11.epnet.com/citation.asp?tb=1&ug=sid+A0737BC4%2D52EF%2D491
30. Meyer, J. (2000). Evaluating action research. Age and Aging, 29(52), 8-10.
31. Michele, G. & Kretschmer, R. E. (1996). Teachers as researchers: supporting professional development. The Volta Review, 98(3), 81-103.
32. Miller, W. H. (2001). The reading teacher’s survival kit. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, John Whiley and Sons, Inc.
33. Mills, G. E. ( 2003). Action Research. A Guide for the teacher researcher. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill, Prentice Hall, Inc.
34. Pakulsky, L.A., & Kaderavek, J.N. (2001). Narrative production by children who are deaf or hard of hearing: The effect of role play. The Volta Review, 103(3), 127-139.
35. Phillips, D. K., & Carr, K. (2014). Becoming a teacher through action research: Process, context, and self-study. Routledge.
36. Pressley, M., Roehrig, A., Bogner, K., Raphael, L. M., & Dolezal, S. (2002). Balanced Literacy Instruction. Focus on exceptional children, 34(5), 1-14.
37. Ramsey, J. & Conway, D. F. (1995). Time and time again: Using mini –lessons within thematic units. The Volta Review, 97(5), 95-116.
38. Reutzel, D. R., & Cooter, R. B. (2004). The essentials of teaching children to read: What every teacher needs to know. Prentice Hall.
39. Richek, M. A., Caldwell J. S., Jennings, J. H., & Lerner, J. W. (2002). Reading problems: Assessment and teaching strategies. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
40. Samara, A.P. & Freese, A.R. (2006). Self-study of teaching practices. New York: Peter Lang.
41. Schirmer, B. R. (2000). Language and literacy development in children who are deaf. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
42. Schoen, S. F., & Schoen, A. A. (2003). Action research in the classroom. Assisting a linguistically different learner with special needs. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(3), 16-21.
43. Simpson J. (2003). Using a class newspaper to improve writing skills in a multicultural classroom. Retrieved from http://gse.gmu.edu/assets/docs/lmtip/vol1/J.Simpson.pdf in 10/05/2008.
44. Smith, F. (1978). Understanding reading (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.
45. Smith, F. (1988). Joining the literacy club: Further essays into education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.
46. Stone, P. (1981). Reading and cognitive development. The Volta Review, February/March, 117-121.
47. Tompkins, G. E. (2000). Teaching writing balancing process and products. (3rd ed.). Colombus, OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
48. Truax, R. R. (1978). Reading and language. In R. R. Kretschmer & L. W. Kretschmer, (Eds.) Language development and intervention with the hearing impaired (pp. 279-310). Baltimore: University Park Press.
49. Truax, R.R. (1985). Linking research to teaching to facilitate reading-writing-communication connections. The Volta Review, 87, 155-169.
50. Turgut, M. F. (1983). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme. Ankara: Saydam Matbaacılık.
51. Uzuner, Y. (2008). Metacognitive strategies applied during correcting text‐related answers of three students with hearing loss. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 8(1), 47-54.
52. Uzuner, Y., Kircaali-Iftar, G., & Karasu, P. (2005). Comparing the effects of various procedures on reconstruction of narratives according to story grammar of a youth with hearing loss. Reading, 5(2), 15-27.
53. Uzuner, Y., Icden, G., Girgin, U., Beral, A., & Kircaali-Iftar, G. (2005). An Examination of Impacts of Text Related Questions on Story Grammar Acquisition of Three Turkish Youths with Hearing Loss. International Journal of Special Education, 20(2), 111-121.
54. Uzuner, Y., Girgin, Ü., Kaya, C., Karasu, G., Girgin, C., Erdiken, B., Cavkaytar, S., & Tanrıdiler, A. (2011). An examination of balanced literacy instructional model implemented to youths with hearing loss. Educational Sciences: Theory&Practice, 11(4), 2126-2133.
55. Wang, S. (2008). Encyclopedia of Information Technology Curriculum Integration. Desktop Publishing in Education. Idea Group Inc (IGI).
56. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2006). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık. Yin, K. R. (2003). Case study research. London: SAGE.