Using Action Research to Innovate Teacher Education Concerning the Use of Modern ICT in Chemistry Classes
Ingo Eilks 1  
,  
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
Biology & Chemistry, University of Bremen
2
Departmend of Biology and Chemistry, University of Bremen, Germany
3
Chemistry Teaching, Schulzentrum Geschwister Scholl, Germany
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Ingo Eilks   

Biology & Chemistry, University of Bremen
Publish date: 2019-07-24
 
ARiSE 2019;2(1):15–21
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Background:
This paper describes action research on teacher education aiming at innovating a course on the use of modern ICT in science education. The background of the action research project is presented and experiences and effects are also discussed.

Material and methods:
The study was carried out at a German university focusing an educational course for pre-service chemistry teachers. The course was cyclically refined over a time span of three years by participatory action research.

Results:
The accompanying research revealed positive effects of the course on the student teachers. The research focused on changes in student teachers’ attitudes and self-efficiency beliefs concerning the use of digital media in general and in chemistry education in particular.

Conclusions:
More investment in action research in innovating science teacher education is needed. The presented case allows to serve as a promising example.

 
REFERENCES (35)
1.
Anderson, R., & Helms, J. V. (2001). The ideal of standards and the reality of schools: needed research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 3-16.
 
2.
Baron, R. A., & Byrne, D. (1991). Social psychology: understanding human interaction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
 
3.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychology, 28, 117-148.
 
4.
Brüggemann, M. (2013). Digitale Medien und Schule [Digital media and school]. In D. Karpa, B. Eickelmann & S. Grafe (eds.), Medienhandeln und berufsbezogene Orientierung von erfahrenen Lehrkräften (pp. 241-252). Kassel: Prolog.
 
5.
Breiter, A., Wellings, S., & Stolpmann, B. E. (2010). Medienkompetenz in der Schule [Media competence in school]. Berlin: LfM/Vistas.
 
6.
Burmeister, M., Eilks, I. (2013). Using Participatory Action Research to develop a course module on Education for Sustainable Development in pre-service chemistry teacher education. Centre of Educational Policy Studies Journal, 3(1), 59-78.
 
7.
Dori, Y. J., Rodrigues, S., & Schanze, S. (2013). How to promote chemistry learning through the use of ICT. In I. Eilks & A. Hofstein (eds.), Teaching chemistry (pp. 213-240). Rotterdam: Sense.
 
8.
Eilks, I., & Feierabend, T. (2013). Developing the curriculum by Participatory Action Research – An interdisciplinary project on climate change. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (eds.), Educational design research: introduction and illustrative cases (pp. 321-338). Enschede: SLO.
 
9.
Eilks, I. & Markic, S., (2011). Effects of a long-term Participatory Action Research project on science teachers’ professional development. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 7, 149-160.
 
10.
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.
 
11.
Francis-Pelton, L. & Pelton, T. (1996). Building attitudes: how a technology course affects pre-service teachers’ attitudes about technology. web.uvic.ca/~tpelton/oldwebsit... (12.01.2015).
 
12.
Gleaves, A., Walker, C., & Grey, J. (2008). Using digital and paper diaries for assessment and learning purposes in higher education: a case of critical reflection or constrained compliance?. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33, 219-233.
 
13.
Gysbers, A. (2008). Lehrer – Medien – Kompetenz: eine empirische Untersuchung zur medienpädagogischen Kompetenz und Performanz niedersächsischer Lehrkräfte [Teacher – media – competence: an empirical investigation on media-educational competence and performace or Lower Saxonian teachers]. Berlin: NLM/Vistas.
 
14.
Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses related to achievement. New York: Routledge.
 
15.
Jimoyiannis, A., & Komis V. (2007). Examining teachers' beliefs about ICT in education: implications of a teacher preparation programme. Teacher Development, 11, 149-173.
 
16.
Joo, J. E. (1999). Cultural issues of the Internet in the classrooms. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30, 245-250.
 
17.
Kersaint, G., Horton, B., Stohl, H., & Garofalo, J. (2003). Technology beliefs and practices of mathematics education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11, 549- 577.
 
18.
Khvilon, E., & Patru, M. (2002). Information and communication technology in education: a curriculum for schools and programme of teacher development. Paris: UNESCO.
 
19.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In J. A. Colbert, K. E. Boyd, K. A. Clark, S. Guan, J. B. Harris, M. A. Kelly & A. D. Thompson (eds.), Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Educators (pp. 1–29). New York: Routledge.
 
20.
Krause, M., & Eilks, I. (2014). Innovating chemistry learning with PREZI. Chemistry in Action, 104 (Winter), 19-25.
 
21.
Krause, M., & Eilks, I. (2015). Lernen über digitale Medien in der Chemielehrerausbildung – Ein Projekt Partizipativer Aktionsforschung [Learning about digital media in chemistry teacher education – a projekt of participatory action research]. Chemie konkret, 22, 173-178.
 
22.
Krause, M., Pietzner, V., Dori, Y. J., & Eilks, I. (2017). Differences and developments in attitudes and self-efficacy of prospective chemistry teachers concerning the Use of ICT in education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13, 4405-4417.
 
23.
Laudonia, I., & Eilks, I. (2018). Teacher-centred action research in a remote participatory environment – A reflection on a case of chemistry curriculum innovation in a Swiss vocational school. In J. Calder and J. Foletta (ed.), Participatory Action Research (PAR): Principles, approaches and applications (pp. 215-231). Hauppauge: Nova.
 
24.
Laudonia, I., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Abels, S., & Eilks, I. (2017). Action research in science education - an analytical review of the literature. Educational Action Research advance article.
 
25.
Lim, C. P. (2007). Effective integration of ICT in Singapore schools: Pedagogical and policy implications. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55, 83-116.
 
26.
Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Eilks, I. (2012). Action research to promote chemistry teachers’ professional development – Cases and experiences from Israel and Germany. International Journal of Mathematics and Science Education, 10, 581-610.
 
27.
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.
 
28.
McIntyre, D. (2005). Bridging the gap between research and practice. Cambridge Journal of Education, 35, 357-382.
 
29.
Raab-Steiner, E., & Benesch, M. (2010). Der Fragebogen: von der Forschungsidee zur SPSS/PASW-Auswertung [The questionnaire: from the research idea to SPSS/PASW evaluation]. Wien. Facultas wuv.
 
30.
Rodrigues, S. (ed.) (2010). Multiple literacy and science education: ICTs in formal and informal learning environments. Hershey: IGI Global.
 
31.
Russell, G., & Bradley, G. (1997). Teachers‘ computer anxiety: implications for professional development. Education and Information Technologies, 2 (1), 17-30.
 
32.
Smith, M. B. (1968). Attitude change. In: W. A. Darity (ed.), International encyclopedia of the social sciences (pp. 458-467). New York: Crowell Collier and MacMillan.
 
33.
Tezci, E. (2011). Factors that influence pre-service teachers’ ICT usage in education, European Journal of Teacher Education, 34, 483-499.
 
34.
Tolsdorf, Y., & Markic, S. (2018). Participatory action research in university chemistry teacher training. Centre for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 8(4), 89-108.
 
35.
Whyte, W. F., Greenwood, D. J., & Lazes, P. (1989). Participatory Action Research. The American Behavioral Scientist, 32, 513-551.