ActionResearch

Melda N. Yildiz

= Bridging theory and practice in global education through action research: = = Implementing Pedagogy of Plenty across disciplines through teachers’ reflections =

Additional Material


 * Table 1- Methodology


 * Table 2- Timeline


 * Table 3- ** Pedagogy of Plenty vs Poverty **


 * Definition of Term


 * References

School for Global Education and Innovation GLOB 5910: Action Research & Global Education I GLOB 5940: Action Research & Global Education II
 * Proposed Course Outlines for Action Research- https://sites.google.com/a/kean.edu/sgei/

Global Competency- http://sites.asiasociety.org/education/globalcompetence/ http://asiasociety.org/education/partnership-global-learning/making-case/global-competence-prepare-youth-engage-world

Globally competent students must have the knowledge and skills to: Globally competent students can articulate the significance of their questions and know how to respond to these questions by identifying, collecting, and analyzing credible information from a variety of local, national and international sources, including those in multiple languages. They can connect the local to the global, for example, by explaining how a local issue like their school recycling program exemplifies a global process far beyond their backyards. From analysis to synthesis to evaluation, they can weigh and integrate evidence to create a coherent response that considers multiple perspectives and draws defensible conclusions --be it an essay, a problem or design solution, a scientific explanation or a work of art. Communicating ideas occurs in a variety of culturally diverse settings, and especially within collaborative teams. Globally competent students are able to situate themselves in a variety of cultural contexts, organize and participate in diverse groups, and work effectively toward a common goal. Globally competent students are media and artistically savvy; they know how to choose and effectively use appropriate technology and media to communicate with diverse audiences, including through respectful online social networking. In short, they are technology and media literate within a global communications environment. Global competence also requires the ability to understand prevailing world conditions, issues, and trends through an interdisciplinary lens as well, in order to understand the interconnectedness of the issue and its broad themes as well as subtle nuances. A competitive advantage will go to those students in San Francisco or São Paulo who know what's going on in the world, can comprehend the interconnectedness of environmental, financial, social, and other systems, and understand how the relative balance of power between societies and cultures has significant short-and long-term consequences. Educating students for global competence requires substantive, developmentally appropriate engagement over time with the world's complexities. Learning about and with the world occurs within and outside of school, and it is the work of a lifetime. Globally competent students are life long learners. They are able to adapt and contribute knowledge and understanding to a world that is constantly, rapidly evolving. Global competence is a crucial shift in our understanding of the purpose of education in a changing world. Students everywhere deserve the opportunity to succeed in the global economy and contribute as global citizens. We must fashion a more creative and visionary educational response to the interconnected world of the 21st century, starting now.
 * Investigate the World**. Global competence starts by being aware, curious, and interested in learning about the world and how it works. Globally competent students ask and explore critical questions and "researchable" problems - problems for which there may not be one right answer, but can be systematically engaged intellectually and emotionally. Their questions are //globally significant//, questions that address important phenomena and events that are relevant world wide - in their own community and in communities across the globe.
 * Weigh Perspectives.** Globally competent students recognize that they have a particular perspective, and that others may or may not share it. They are able to articulate and explain the perspectives of other people, groups, or schools of thought and identify influences on these perspectives, including how differential access to knowledge, technology, and resources can affect people's views. Their understanding of others' perspectives is deeply informed by historical knowledge about other cultures as well as contemporary events. They can compare and contrast their perspective with others, and integrate their own and others' viewpoints to construct a new one, when needed.
 * Communicate Ideas.** Globally competent students understand that audiences differ on the basis of culture, geography, faith, ideology, wealth, and other factors and that they may perceive different meanings from the same information. They can effectively communicate, verbally and non-verbally, with diverse audiences. Because it is increasingly the world's common language for commerce and communication, globally competent students in the US and elsewhere are proficient in English as well as in at least one other world language.
 * Take Action.** What skills and knowledge will it take to go from learning //about// the world to making a difference //in// the world? First, it takes seeing oneself as capable of making a difference. Globally competent students see themselves as players, not bystanders. They're keenly able to recognize opportunities from targeted human rights advocacy to creating the next out-of-the-box, must-have business product we didn't know we needed. Alone or with others, ethically and creatively, globally competent students can envision and weigh options for action based on evidence and insight; they can assess their potential impact, taking into account varied perspectives and potential consequences for others; and they show courage to act and reflect on their actions.
 * Apply Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Expertise.** Is global competence all skills and no knowledge? Hardly. As true now as at any other time, //learning content matters//. Global competence requires that the capacities described above be both applied within academic disciplines and contextualized within each discipline's methods of inquiry and production of knowledge. Globally competent students learn to think like historians and scientists and artists by using the tools and methods of inquiry of the disciplines.


 * Table 3- **** Checklist - The Pedagogy of Poverty vs Plenty **

It is adopted by
 * M. Haberman. “The Pedagogy of Poverty vs. Good Teaching” __Phi Delta Kappan__ 1991. 290-294.
 * Helen Hodges. “Overcoming a Pedagogy of Poverty” R. Cole, Ed. More Strategies for Educating Everybody’s Children, ASCD, 2001, p.1-9
 * Global Competence Matrix- [|www.edsteps.org/ccsso/SampleWorks/matrix.pdf]
 * NJ Core Curriculum Content Standards- []

(e.g. manipulatives, mobile devices, co-created textbooks by students) ||  || Connecting school with home, culture and community ||  || Punishing noncompliance || Varied social configuration Rules made by students and teachers together ||  || Individualized as well as peer, group and whole classroom instruction ||  || Giving low level tasks Monitoring seatwork || Engagement in substantive dialogue, discussion, debate about the substance of content Meaning-driven curriculum Literacy-rich environment Quality resources ||  || Assessed by state and national administrators || Assessed by self and peer as well as teachers, state and national administrators ||  || Going over tests Giving tests Grading papers Giving grades || Making meaning Authentic tasks Rubrics used for assessment Problem-focused learning Challenge based projects ||  || Assigning homework || Self and peer assessment ||  ||
 * || The Pedagogy of Poverty: Adopted by M. Haberman. “The Pedagogy of Poverty vs. Good Teaching” __Phi Delta Kappan__ 1991. 290-294. || The Pedagogy of Plenty: adopted by Helen Hodges. “Overcoming a Pedagogy of Poverty” R. Cole, Ed. __More Strategies for Educating Everybody’s Children,__ ASCD, 2001, p.1-9 ||  ||
 * || Curriculum || Projects ||  ||
 * || Learning for school || Learning for life ||  ||
 * || Competitive || Collaborative ||  ||
 * || Time-Slotted || On demand ||  ||
 * || One size fits all || Personalized ||  ||
 * Classroom Materials || Textbook based || Innovative instructional materials beyond textbook
 * || Classroom || Global Community
 * || Settling disputes
 * Instruction || Teacher centered || Student Center approach ||  ||
 * || Whole classroom approach, limited opportunity for collaboration || Differentiated Instruction
 * || Taking notes while instructor provides instruction || Collaborative work on issues of deep concern to the students ||  ||
 * || Giving directions
 * || Asking right answer questions || Cognitive and metacognition in the context of purposeful activities ||  ||
 * Assessment || Assessment for learning- focusing on summative || Assessment of learning- formative and summative assessment ||  ||
 * || Teacher assessment
 * || Reviewing
 * Homework || Busy work || Creativity ||  ||
 * || Going over homework
 * Students || English Language Learners (ELL) students are seen problematic || ELL students are seen an **asset** not deficit ||  ||
 * || Giving information- Banking Model || Students translate their ideas and findings into appropriate **actions** to improve conditions ||  ||
 * || Consumers of knowledge || Producers of knowledge ||  ||

This checklist will be used for analyzing the curriculum projects (lesson plans), classroom videos as well as participants’ journals and online dialogues.

eg. Physics; History; Psychology
 * Definition of Terms:**
 * [[image:ukean/transdisciplinary.gif]] || Disciplinary: Epistemologies,, knowledge, skills, methods within the boundary of a discipline.

Multidisciplinary: Using the knowledge/understanding of more than one discipline. eg Physics and History; Biology and Architecture Interdisciplinary: Using the epistemologies/methods of one discipline within another. eg. Biochemistry; Ecophilosophy; Astrophysics  Transdisciplinary: Focus on an issue such as pollution or hunger both within and beyond discipline boundaries with the possibility of new perspectives.eg. global education Transdisciplinary complements disciplinary approaches.

The transdisciplinary vision goes beyond the exact sciences and demands dialogue with the humanities and the social sciences, as well as with art, literature, poetry and spiritual experience.

The recognition of the existence of different levels of reality governed by different types of logic is inherent in the transdisciplinary attitude.

The transdisciplinary ||
 * [[image:ukean/Slide1.jpg width="504" height="378"]] || Global Education Model for our PAR project ||
 * [[image:ukean/Slide1.jpg width="504" height="378"]] || Global Education Model for our PAR project ||

Table 1- Methodology

TC- candidates (Juniors and Seniors) CT- Cooperating Teacher/ In-service TE- Teacher Educator SI- Supervising Instructor GS- graduate student Recent graduates, teacher candidates, supervising teachers, cooperating in-service teachers and teacher educators ||  ||
 * TIMELINE || Data Collection/ Methods || Participants || Data Types || Purpose for Collection ||
 * Fall2013 || Participatory Action Research PAR |||| R- Researcher
 * Phase 1- Deconstruction- Investigation and analysis ||
 * August- September 2013 |||||||| * Researcher start recording, deconstructing and analyzing her lecture notes, classroom dialog focusing on “Pedagogy of Plenty” model.

* IRB forms and permissions for research will be requested.

* Participants will be identified.

* Literature review will be completed.

* Online Forum/ Platform for sharing and deconstructing resources will be developed. ||
 * October- November 2013 || Online meetings- 1 || CT/TC/SI || Discussions will be recorded and transcribed. || * Participants will be invited to join online (e.g. skype) meetings/ interviews. ||
 * || Interviews (Preobservation) || CT/TC/SI || 30-minute pre-observation teacher interviews || To identify teachers’ pedagogical perspectives & teaching practices ||
 * || Observations(ethnographic) of K12 classrooms || R/ TC/ CT/ SI || 2 to 4 classroom observations 45- 60 min each

Six classroom observations 45- 60 min each * two K12 classroom-student teacher teaches

* two senior seminar course in COE- faculty teaches || To observe relationship between pedagogical perspectives &teaching practices || Recent graduates, teacher candidates, supervising teachers, cooperating in-service teachers and teacher educators will be invited for a focus group discussion. || 60-minute focus groups 1 hr with TC 1 hr with TE  1 hr with CT/SI 1 hr with all || to discuss their teaching philosophies from classroom management style to pedagogy of plenty.
 * || Self Study/ Reflection on teacher candidates’ self assessment || R || weekly journals- online blog entries ||  ||
 * November 2013 || * Focus group discussion I || All invited

to create a criteria list from which to identify a pool of “effective” teachers from which to select teacher interview participants

To clarify and reflect on their pedagogical perspectives &teaching practices || All invited || 60-minute postobservationteacher interviews || *Dialog on online forum continues || * Data Analysis from PAR Questionnaire II || question, answer and reflection || *Participants will be invited to attend online (e.g. skype) meetings.
 * December 2013 || Dialog on online forum- 2 || TC
 * || *Questionnaire II || TC || Asking to respond to 3-5 case studies || *Questionnaire II will be completed
 * January- February 2014 || Online meetings/ Self Study online entries || TC/ R || 60 min recorded

*Self Study/Reflection and dialog on online forum continues ||
 * || Content analysis of TWS || TC || 5 to 10 TWS portfolios will be selected and studied || *Participant' portfolios and projects will be collected and analyzed. ||
 * March- April 2014 || Interview || TC || 30 min dialog with two three TC || * Participants will be interviewed on skype, phone or in-person.

* dialog on online forum continues ||
 * ||  || GS || 30 min dialog with two GS on their feedback to online dialog ||   ||
 * || Self Study online entries || R ||  || Self Study/Reflection ||
 * April 2014 || Classroom observation of recent graduates

Self Study online entries || TC || Four classroom observations- recent TC || * Outline the role of PAR on participants’ discoveries, reactions, and reflections and sharing their updates with teacher education faculty for feedback.

* Self Study/ Reflection on teacher candidates’ self assessment ||
 * May 2014 || Focus group discussion II || All invited ||  || * to outline/ share preliminary findings

* Outline/ co-create the action research guide for teacher candidates by teacher candidates. || * Data Analysis from PAR Questionnaire III ||
 * || Questionnaire III || TC ||  || To collect data on TC’s response to case studies and pedagogy of plenty activities
 * June 2014 |||||||| * The guide will be edited by the participants (TC, R) and prepared for publication.

* Prepare presentation to share the results and apply for conferences.

* Write the final report. ||

Table 2- Timeline ||
 * Phase 1- Deconstruction- Investigation and analysis ||  ||   ||
 * August- September 2013

* Researcher start recording, deconstructing and analyzing her lecture notes, classroom dialog focusing on “Pedagogy of Plenty” model.

* IRB forms and permissions for research will be requested.

* Participants will be identified.

* Literature review will be completed.

* Online Forum/ Platform for sharing and deconstructing resources will be developed.

October -2013

* Survey instruments and questionnaire will be designed and piloted. (Qualtrics software will be used)

* Questionnaire 1 will be completed

* Data Analysis from PAR Questionnaire I

* Observation of K12 classrooms

* Self Study/Reflection starts ||
 * Phase 2- Participatory Dialogs

Co-constructing the meaning of “Pedagogy of Plenty” for teacher education courses ||
 * October- November 2013

* Recent graduates, teacher candidates, supervising teachers, cooperating in-service teachers and teacher educators will be invited for a focus group discussion.

* Participants will be invited to join online (e.g. skype) meetings/ interviews.

* Discussions will be recorded and transcribed.

* Observation of K12 classrooms

* Dialog on online forum starts

* Self Study/ Reflection on teacher candidates’ self assessment

November 2013 * Focus group discussion I

December 2013

*Dialog on online forum continues

*Questionnaire II will be completed

* Data Analysis from PAR Questionnaire II ||
 * Phase 3- Planning and action: to implement “Pedagogy of Plenty” ||
 * January- February 2014

*Participants will be invited to attend online (e.g. skype) meetings.

*Self Study/Reflection and dialog on online forum continues

*Participant' portfolios and projects will be collected and analyzed.

March- April 2014

* Participants will be interviewed on skype, phone or in-person.

* Self Study/Reflection and dialog on online forum continues ||
 * Phase 4- Evaluation and reflection

Co-constructing strategies for innovative transdisciplinary curriculum ||
 * April 2014

* Outline the role of PAR on participants’ discoveries, reactions, and reflections and sharing their updates with teacher education faculty for feedback.

* Self Study/ Reflection on teacher candidates’ self assessment

* Classroom observation of recent graduates

May 2014

* Focus group discussion II with the participants to share preliminary findings

* Outline/ co-create the action research guide for teacher candidates by teacher candidates.

* Questionnaire III will be completed

* Data Analysis from PAR Questionnaire III

June 2014

* The guide will be edited by the participants and prepared for publication.

* Prepare presentation to share the results and apply for conferences.

* Write the final report. ||  ||   ||


 * Bridging theory and practice in global education through action research: Implementing the Pedagogy of Plenty across disciplines through teachers’ reflections **


 * References: **

Allen, J., Michalove, B., & Shockley, B. (1993). Engaging children: Community and chaos in the lives of young literacy learners. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Bargal, D. (2006). Personal and intellectual influences leading to Lewin's paradigm of action research: Towards the 60th anniversary of Lewin's Action research and minority problems' (1946). ActionResearch, 4,367-388. doi: 10.1177/1476750306070101

Berger, J. G., Boles, K. C, & Troen, V. (2005). Teacher research and school change: Paradoxes, problems, and possibilities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21,93-105. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2004.11.008

Bruder, M.B. (1994). Working with members of other disciplines: Collaboration for success. In M. Wolery & J.S. Wilbers (Eds.), Including children with special needs in early childhood programs(pp. 45-70). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Burgess, J. (2006). Participatory action research: First perspectives of a graduate student. ActionResearch, 4,419-437. doi: 10.1177/1476750306070104

Cardno, C. (2003). Action research. A developmental approach. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Research in Education.

Casey, A., Dyson, B., & Campbell, A. (2009). Action research in physical education: focusing beyond myself through cooperative learning. Educational Action Research, 17(3), 407-423. doi:10.1080/09650790903093508

Cole, R. W., & ASCD Improving Student Achievement Research Panel. (2008).Educating everybody's children: Diverse teaching strategies for diverse learners. Alexandria, Va: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 300-314. doi: 10.1177/0022487105285962

Esposito, J., and V. Evans-Winters. 2007. Contextualising critical action research: Lessons from urban educators. Educational Action Research 15, no. 2: 221–37.

Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. London: Penguin Books.

Freire, P. (2005). Teachers as cultural workers. Letters to those who dare teach. Trans. D.K.D. Macedo and A. Oliveira. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Grant, S., & Humphries, M. (2006). Critical evaluation of appreciative inquiry: Bridging an apparent paradox.Action Research, 4, 401-418. doi: 10.1177/1476750306070103

Goodnough, K. (2011). Examining the long-term impact of collaborative action research on teacher identity and practice: the perceptions of K-12 teachers.Educational Action Research, 19(1), 73-86. doi:10.1080/09650792.2011.547694

Haberman, M. (1991). The Pedagogy of Poverty vs. Good Teaching. __Phi Delta Kappan__ 1991. 290-294.

Hagevik, R., Aydeniz, M., & Rowell, C. (2012). Using action research in middle level teacher education to evaluate and deepen reflective practice. Teaching & Teacher Education, 28(5), 675-684. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.02.006

Hodges, H. (2001). Overcoming a Pedagogy of Poverty. R. Cole, Ed. More Strategies for Educating Everybody’s Children, ASCD, 2001, p.1-9.

Honigsfeld, A., Connolly, M., & Kelly, S. (2012). Demystifying Teacher Action Research: Lessons Learned from a Graduate Education Capstone Experience. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 79(2), 15-21.

Huerta, T. M. (2011). Humanizing Pedagogy: Beliefs and Practices on the Teaching of Latino Children. Bilingual Research Journal, 34(1), 38-57. doi:10.1080/15235882.2011.568826

Johnson, A. P. (2008). A short guide to action research. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Kincheloe, J.L. (1993). Toward a critical politics of teacher thinking. Mapping the postmodern.

Connecticut, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Kitchen, J., & Stevens, D. (2008). Action research in teacher education. Action Research, 6(1), 7-28. doi:10.1177/1476750307083716

Koutselini, M. (2008). Participatory teacher development at schools. Action Research, 6(1), 29-48. doi:10.1177/1476750307083718

Ladson-Billings, G.J. & Tate, W. (2006). Education research in the public interest: Social justice, action, and policy. New York, NY: Teachers College Press

McNaughton, M. (2012). Implementing Education for Sustainable Development in schools: learning from teachers’ reflections. Environmental Education Research, 18(6), 765-782. doi:10.1080/13504622.2012.665850

Peters, J. (2004). Teachers engaging in action research: Challenging some assumptions. Educational Action Research 12, no. 4: 535–55.

Robinson, V., and M.K. Lai. (2006). Practitioner research for educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Rule, P. (2011). Bakhtin and Freire: Dialogue, dialectic and boundary learning.Educational Philosophy & Theory, 43(9), 924-942. doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2009.00606.x

Schon, D. E. (1990). Educating the reflective practitioner. New York, NY: Jossey-Bass.

Shim, S. (2008). A philosophical investigation of the role of teachers: A synthesis of Plato, Confucius, Buber, and Freire. Teaching & Teacher Education, 24(3), 515-535. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.09.014

Souto-Manning, M. (2012). Teacher Action Research in Teacher Education. Childhood Education, 88(1), 54-56.

Tomlinson, C.A., & Imbeau, M. B. (2010). //Leading and managing a differentiated classroom.// Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2011). Notes from an accidental teacher. //Educational Leadership, 68//(4), 22–26.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2010). One kid at a time. //Educational Leadership//, //67(//5), 12–16.


 * Resources: **

Speak up at school curriculum by Tolerance.org-

__http://www.tolerance.org/supplement/how-implement-speak-school__

Ten Chairs of Inequality-

[]

__TED: Ideas worth spreading__ [|http://www.ted.com/]

21st Century Teaching Skills []

Common Core Standards- []

Global Competencies []

International technology standards []

Learner.org Annenberg Learner- [|http://www.learner.org/]

MERLOT - Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and Online Teaching -- []

NJ Standards []*