Social Studies Teachers Use of Action Research As a Scientific Research Method

Öz

In this study, the implementation of action research by social studies teachers in classrooms was investigated as a scientific research. Twenty social studies teachers working in various cities in Turkey participated in the research. Teachers had experience working in rural, district, or central schools, ranging from 3 to 20 years of professional experience. Data were collected through interviews lasting between 30 minutes to 1 hour via Zoom due to the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19). MAXQDA 2020 qualitative data analysis software was used for content analysis in the data analysis. Teachers perceive scientific research as following scientific developments, reviewing the literature, and using it in social studies classes (writing projects and achieving lesson objectives). The coding indicates that teachers do not adequately develop their professional development areas in in-service and pre-service training and do not play the role of a research-oriented teacher in their classrooms. The research revealed that teachers do not use action research as a scientific research method. Teachers are recommended to systematically carry out measurement and evaluation processes such as reflection, peer assessment, and self-assessment, viewing action research as a scientific methodology.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• action research
• scientific thinking
• social studies teachers
• teaching profession

Kaynakça

1. Akhan, N.-E., and Demirezen, S. (2017). Sosyal bilgiler öğretmenlerinin “araştırmacı öğretmen modeli” hakkındaki görüşleri [The Opinions of the Social Studies Teachers on “Researcher-Teacher Model]. e-Uluslararası Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(3), 16-33.
2. Akiba, M., and Liang, G. (2016). Effects of teacher professional learning activities on student achievement growth. The Journal of Educational Research, 109(1), 99-110.
3. Alan, B. (2016). Öğretmen eğitiminde nitel bir araştırma yöntemi olarak bireysel araştırma [self-study as a qualitative research methodology in teacher education]. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education/ Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 4(1), 7-25.
4. Arıbaş, S., Kartal, Ş., and Çağlar, İ. (2012). İngilizce öğretmenlerinin hizmet içi eğitim faaliyetlerine ilişkin görüşleri [Opinions of English teachers on in-service training activities]. Journal of National Education/ Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 42(195), 100-117.
5. Aslanargun, E., & Atmaca, T. (2017). Teachers ’determination of needs and expectations of professional development. Asian Journal of Instruction, 5(2), 50-64.
6. Baldan, B., and Güven, M. (2018). Öğretmenlerin mesleki gelişiminde lisansüstü eğitim: eğitim programları ve öğretim doktora programı [Graduate Education in Teachers’ Professional Development: Curriculum and Instruction Doctoral Program]. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 47(1), 1-36.
7. Bannink, A., and Dam, J. v. (2007). Bootstrapping reflection on classroom ınteractions: discourse contexts of novice teachers' thinking. Evaluation & Research in Education, 20(2), 81-99.
8. Barkhuizen, G. (2021). Identity dilemmas of a teacher (educator) researcher: teacher research versus academic institutional research. Educational Action Research, 29(3), 358-377.

9. Barnes, M., and Cross, R. (2021). ‘Quality’ at a cost: the politics of teacher education policy in Australia. Critical Studies in Education, 62(4), 455-470.
10. Barr, R., Barth, J.L. and Shermis, S.S. (2013). Sosyal bilgilerin doğası. [The Nature of Social Studies] Çev. Ed. C. Dönmez, Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
11. Barrett, S. H. (2023). Assessment by design: A practical approach to improve student learning. New York: Routledge.
12. Baysal, E. A., and Ocak, G. (2019). Öğrenme ortamında eylem araştırması kullanan öğretmenlerin eylem araştırması hakkındaki görüşleri [Opinions of teachers who use action research in learning environment about action research]. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 1(47), 266-290.
13. Burns, A., & Westmacott, A. (2018). Teacher to researcher: Reflections on a new action research program for university EFL teachers. Profile Issues in Teachers Professional Development, 20(1), 15-23.
14. Cardelle-Elawar, M. (1993). The teacher as researcher in the classroom. Action in Teacher Education, 15(1), 49-57.
15. Çelik, Ö., Yorulmaz, A., and Çokçalışkan, H. (2019). Primary school teachers’ and primary school teacher trainees’ evaluation of themselves in terms of generic teacher competencies Journal Of Social Sciences, Eskişehir Osmangazi University , 20, 203-215.
16. Çepni, S., and Akdeniz, A. R. (1996). Fizik öğretmenlerinin yetiştirilmesinde yeni bir yaklaşım [A new approach in the training of physics teachers]. Hacettepe University Faculty of Education Journal, 12(12), 221-226.
17. Chunmei Yan (2017) ‘You never know what research is like unless you’ve done it!’ Action research to promote collaborative student-teacher research, Educational Action Research, 25(5), 704-719, DOI: 10.1080/09650792.2016.1245155.
18. Cochran-Smith, M., and Lytle, S. L. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York and London: Teachers College Press.
19. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8, 1-44.
20. Darwin, S., and Barahona, M. (2019). Can an outsider become an insider? Analysing the effect of action research in initial EFL teacher education programs. Educational Action Research, 27(5), 709-725.
21. Davis, J., Clayton, C., and Broome, J. (2018). Thinking like researchers: action research and its impact on novice teachers’ thinking. Educational Action Research, 26(1), 59-74.
22. Desimone, L. M., and Porter, A. C., and Garet, M. S., and Yoon, K. S., and Birman, B. F. (2002). Effects of professional development on teachers’ instruction: results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 24(2), 81-112.
23. Eginli, I., & Dikilitas, K. (2022). Examining the interplay between english language teachers’ mindset and researcher self-efficacy beliefs in the use of action research. ie: Inquiry in Education, 14(1), 1-25.
24. Ekiz, D., and Yiğit, N. (2012). Öğretmen adaylarının eğitim araştırmalarının amaç ve çeşitleri hakkındaki görüşlerinin incelenmesi [Examination of pre-service teachers' views on the purpose and types of educational research]. Sakarya University Journal of Education Faculty, 23(23), 3-21
25. Eroğlu, M., and Özbek, R. (2020). Etkili Öğretmenlerin Mesleki Gelişimi [Professional Development of Effective Teachers]. Journal of Dicle University Ziya Gökalp Faculty of Education, 1(37), 73-92.
26. Ertuğ, C. (2009). Öğretmenlerin meslekî gelişimleri: Engeller ve öneriler [Professional development of teachers: Barriers and suggestions]. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 7(4), 1618-1650.
27. Ginsberg R. (2023) ‘Preservice teacher action research: Making meaning and generating knowledge through inquiry’, Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science, 16(1), 1-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.7160/eriesj.2023.160101
28. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3), 381-391.
29. Hanayli, G., Öztürk, A. A., Baysan, S., and Vural, R. (2020) Case study on the nature, meaning and methods taught in social studies: Teacher perspectives. Western Anatolia Journal of Educational Sciences, 11(1), 210-238.
30. Hancock, D. R., Algozzine, B., and Lim, J. H. (2021). Doing case study research: A practical guide for beginning researchers. London.: Teachers College Press.
31. Hanks, J. (2021). Co-production and multimodality: learners as co-researchers exploring practice. Educational Action Research, 29(3), 462-482.
32. Herbert, S., and Rainford, M. (2014). Developing a model for continuous professional development by action research. Professional Development in Education, 40(2), 243-264.
33. Hilton, A. L., Saunders, R., and Mansfield, C. (2020). “In LANTITE, no one can hear you scream!” student voices of high-stakes testing in teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 45(12), 57-72.
34. Idris, K., Eskender, S., Demoz, B., Yosief, A., & Andemicael, K. (2023). ‘Let’s focus on us’: recounting educators’ facilitation practices in improving collaborative commitments of learner-teachers during an action research course. Educational Action Research, 31(4), 797-820.
35. Karaman, S., and Bakırcı, F. (2010). Türkiye’de lisansüstü eğitim: Sorunlar ve çözüm önerileri [Postgraduate education in Turkey: Problems and solutions]. Journal of Social Sciences Research, 5(2), 94-114.
36. Kırkgöz, Y., and Yaşar, M. (2020). Araştırmacı öğretmen: Daha iyiye yolculuk [Research teacher: Journey to the better]. Ankara Nobel yayıncılık.
37. Kondo, T. (2020). Transforming critical and participative teacher research into communicative action: a possible direction for teacher professional learning. Educational Action Research, 28(2), 159-174.
38. Korucuk, M. (2019). Farklı ülkelerde öğretmenlik eğitimi veren okulların değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of schools providing teacher education in different countries]. Journal of Academic Social Research, 89, 477-498.
39. Kuzu, A. (2009). Öğretmen Yetiştirme ve Mesleki Gelişimde Eylem Araştırması [Action Research in Teacher Training and Professional Development]. Journal of International Social Research, 1(6), 425-433.
40. Lo, C. K. (2017). Examining the flipped classroom through action research. The Mathematics Teacher, 110(8), 624-627.
41. Lo, C. K., & Hew, K. F. (2021). Developing a flipped learning approach to support student engagement: A design‐based research of secondary school mathematics teaching. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(1), 142-157.
42. Mandouit, L. (2018). Using student feedback to improve teaching. Educational Action Research, 26(5), 755-769.
43. Marit U. & Hanne R. (2016) Action research in pre-service teacher education – a never-ending story promoting professional development, Professional Development in Education, 42:3, 441-457, DOI: 10.1080/19415257.2014.1003089
44. Mayer, D., and Mills, M. (2021). Professionalism and teacher education in Australia and England. European Journal of Teacher Education, 44(1), 45-61.
45. Messiou, K. (2019). Collaborative action research: facilitating inclusion in schools. Educational Action Research, 27(2), 197-209.
46. Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook: 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
47. Miller, I. K., Cunha, M. I. A., and Allwright, D. (2021). Teachers as practitioners of learning: the lens of exploratory practice. Educational Action Research, 29(3), 447-461.
48. MoNE. (2017). Öğretmenlik mesleği genel yeterlikleri [General competencies of the teaching profession]. In. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları.
49. MoNE. (2018). Güçlü yarınlar için 2023 eğitim vizyonu belgesi [2023 education vision document for strong tomorrows]. In. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları.
50. Musanti, S., and Pence, L. (2010). Collaboration and teacher development: Unpacking resistance, constructing knowledge, and navigating identities. Teacher Education Quarterly, 37(1), 73-89.
51. O’Siochru, C., and Norton, L., and Pilkington, R., and Parr, E., and Anderson, B., and Maslen, J. (2021). Action learning: how can it contribute to a collaborative process of pedagogical action research? Educational Action Research, 29(2), 191-205.
52. Özden, M., and Saban, A. (2017). Nitel araştırmalarda paradigma ve teorik temeller [In qualitative research, paradigms and theoretical foundations are essential components]. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırma desenleri [Qualitative Research Designs in Education]. (1-30). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
53. Papadopoulou, M. (2021). A student, a practitioner or a researcher? An attempt to reconcile the three roles through an undergraduate action research module. Educational Action Research, 29(2), 206-225.
54. Paredes-Chi, A. A., and Castillo-Burguete, M. T. (2018). Is Participatory Action Research an innovative pedagogical alternative for training teachers as researchers? The training plan and evaluation for normal schools. Evaluation and Program Planning, 68, 176-184.
55. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Nitel araştırma ve değerlendirme yöntemleri [Qualitative research & evaluation methods]. Çev. M. Bütün & S. Beşir Demir Ankara Pegem Akademi.
56. Pultorak, E., McCarthy, J., and Young, M. W. (2006). school and university partnerships and the role of teacher as researcher. Action in Teacher Education, 28(1), 99-109.
57. Saka, A. (2006). Öğretmen adaylarının araştırmacı öğretmen yaklaşımı ile yetiştirilmelerinde alan çalışması yürütmelerinin rolü [The role of conducting field studies in the training of prospective teachers with a researcher teacher approach]. Journal of Sakarya University Faculty of Education (17), 168-182.
58. Santos N, Monteiro V, Mata L, Gizzi MC, S (2021) Using MAXQDA in qualitative content analysis: an example comparing single-person and focus group interviews. the Practice of Qualitative Data Analysis Research Examples Using MAXQDA. (35-54). Berlin: MAXQDA Press.
59. Seferoğlu, S. S. (2004). Öğretmen yeterlilikleri ve mesleki gelişim [Teacher competencies and professional development]. Bilim ve Aklın Aydınlığında Eğitim, 58, 40-45.
60. Semathong, S. (2023). Participatory action research to develop the teachers on classroom action research. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 11(3), 29-36.
61. Sıcak, A. and Parmaksız, R. Ş. (2016). An evaluation of efficacy of in-service training in primary schools, The Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 17(1), 17-33. DOI: 10.17679/iuefd.17144668
62. Silverman, D. (2018). Nitel verileri yorumlama Trans. Edit: Erkan Dinç. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
63. Smets, W., De Neve, D., and Struyven, K. (2022). Responding to students’ learning needs: how secondary education teachers learn to implement differentiated instruction. Educational Action Research, 30(2), 243-260.
64. Stanulis, R. N., and Jeffers, L. (1995). action research as a way of learning about teaching in a mentor/student teacher relationship. Action in Teacher Education, 16(4), 14-24.
65. Stroupe, D. (2023). Growing and sustaining student-centered science classrooms. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.
66. Subaşı, M., and Okumuş, K. (2017). Bir araştırma yöntemi olarak durum çalışması [Case Study as a Research Method]. Journal of Graduate School of Social Sciences, 21(2), 419-426.
67. TEDMEM. (2019). TALIS 2018 Sonuçları ve Türkiye Üzerine Değerlendirmeler (Rapor) [TALIS 2018 Results and Evaluations on Turkey (Report)]. Ankara TED Yayın.
68. Tezcan-Unal, B. (2018). Action research on a collegial model of peer observations. Educational Action Research, 26(4), 641-654.
69. Topçu, E. (2017). Social studies course as defined by the teachers. Journal of Education and e-Learning Research, 4(4), 139-153.
70. Tosuntaş, Ş. B. (2020). Öğretmenlik mesleği genel yeterliklerinin incelenmesi. Academy Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(1), 53-61.
71. Turhan, M., & Yaraş, Z. (2013). The contribution of graduate programs to professional development of teachers, administrators and inspectors. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences , 12(43), 200-218.
72. Wahlgren, B., and Aarkrog, V. (2021). Bridging the gap between research and practice: how teachers use research-based knowledge. Educational Action Research, 29(1), 118-132.
73. Yıldırım, A., and Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (5. Baskı) [Qualitative research methods in the social sciences]. Ankara: Şeçkin Yayıncılık.
74. Zeichner, K., and Liston, D. (1987). Teaching student teachers to reflect. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 23-49.
75. Zireva, D. (2017). Cul-de-sac from diehard traditions: the demise of action research in teacher education. Educational Research and Reviews, 12(15), 725-731.