Research method and outline .1 Research method

(a) Action research: Definition and goals, types and benefits

Various scholars define educational action research differently. Several definitions were reviewed, as they have informative research design implications. The definitions are similar in that they involve education action research being an action-and-reflection oriented process where practitioners (such as myself) review their own educational practice systematically and carefully in order to bring about a desired change in practice (Feldman, 1994; Ferrance, 2000). Further, Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) define it as a “form of self-reflective inquiry”

conducted by participants in particular social contexts to improve the rationality and justice in their social and educational practices, and their understanding of these practices and situations in which these practices are undertaken (p. 5). Taking into consideration the similarities and dissimilarities of these explanation models, I resolved to define education action research as a systematic inquiry conducted by teachers, through a series of successive cycles, to know about, and improve a particular teaching practice or learning process. This activity has potential for bringing about a successful reform in the education arena (Guskey, 2000). For this study, I adopted an idea from Rossouw (2009) that stages (explained later in this section) in the first cycle may be repeated in the second cycle, with necessary adjustments only. The two primary goals of education action research, as identified by Ferrance (2000), are change in educational practice, and in professional development of participants.

53 Noffke and Stevenson (1995) point out that action research is specifically helpful to both pre- service and in-service teachers when exploring alternatives to current educational practices, which may enhance learning. Teachers who conduct education action research become reflective and inquiring practitioners in their classrooms (Fals-Borda & Anisur, 1991).

Moreover, addressing questions that deal with educational matters at hand causes a teacher’s practice to evolve, as he/she works on problems he/she identifies in a class or in the whole school (Ferrance, 2000).

Education action research provides the “first person trueness” of the case being studied (Candler, 2003). This means that findings of education action research accord with the actual state or condition of the case being explored. For instance, seeking evidence from learners about how they learn may result in collecting more factual information than when seeking it from secondary sources, such as documents published by other researchers. Additionally, action research with rather than on people provides full descriptions of situations (Candler, 2003). When action research is conducted with people, people become research participants rather than research objects, and they are more likely to provide rich and real data. This action research was conducted with learners in Grade 9 in order to obtain first hand data of how they make sense of chemical bonding before and after the coordinated visual-verbal intersemiotic complementarity teaching approach.

Ferrance (2000) identifies four types of action research. The first one is individual-teacher action research, because it is conducted by one teacher on a single classroom issue (Ferrance, 2000). The second type is called collaborative action research, where a group of researchers work collaboratively to explore a particular issue (Ferrance, 2000). The third type is referred to as school-wide action research and is applicable in research where the researcher targets the whole school (Ferrance, 2000). The last type is district-wide action research, which covers a large area such as a district or village (Ferrance, 2000). My study falls under the category of individual-teacher action research, because it explores the influences of a visual- verbal intersemiotic complementarity teaching approach on learners’ sense-making of chemical bonding, in a single classroom (there was only one Grade 9 class at my school at the time of conducting this research).

(b) Individual-teacher action research: Benefits and challenges

Individual-teacher action research is conducted by a single teacher who focuses on finding a solution to a single classroom issue (Ferrance, 2000). The classroom issue may include

54 classroom management, instructional strategies (such as an approach to teaching chemical bonding), use of teaching materials (such as visual-verbal materials in this study), and student learning (such as their making sense of chemical bonding). The process of individual-teacher action research begins with identification of an area or a problem of interest, before seeking solutions to it (Calhoun, 1994). As outlined in Chapter 1, the research problem in this study arose from anecdotal evidence, which was further supported by examiner reports and literature around the challenges posed by the topic of chemical bonding.

During individual-teacher action research, students may or may not be involved directly in the generation of alternatives and determination of effects (Calhoun, 1994). Further, action research practitioners may be supported by their supervisor or principal, instructor, or even parents. In this study, support was provided by my research supervisor, who provided guidance and critical feedback throughout the research process. Since my study was based at the school where I was teaching, further support was obtained from the school principal and a critical friend (details in Section 4.4). The principal has played a significant role by providing consent for the study to be undertaken at the school, and by informing teachers and learners that they could accord me the assistance that I required. A critical friend, according to Stenhouse (1975), is a chosen teacher who has agreed to work with and advise the teacher- researcher throughout the research process. In this study, the critical friend worked collaboratively with myself as the teacher-researcher and, in some instances, provided me with advice on the research process.

Ferrance (2000) states that individual-teacher action-research can benefit the teacher- researcher in numerous ways. The benefits include collecting relevant data (from learners), hence increasing validity of the study, when conducted with learners (Ferrance, 2000). I explained to learners that my presence, as their usual teacher, should not influence their participation in this study. According to Ferrance (2000), individual-teacher action research is also an opportunity for teachers to evaluate strategically and improve their own teaching practice. Other benefits of individual-teacher action research involve the teacher gaining confidence through reflection, improved thinking skills, developing efficacy of the teacher, willingness in the teacher to work with other teachers, and improving the attitude of the teacher towards change (Ferrance, 2000).

Feldman (1994) argues that changes caused by interventions, such as the improvement in the teacher’s practice and understanding, are difficult to measure. However, as will be discussed

55 in Chapter 6, the discussion of data collected via learners’ reflective journaling has the potential to reveal the influences of the coordinated visual-verbal intersemiotic complementarity teaching approach to chemical bonding. The influences may be realised in learners’ sense-making changes of chemical bonding. Calhoun (1994) argues that the change may affect only the chosen class group and not other class groups but since my teaching practice was informed by the study, the impact will shape my students’ making sense of chemical bonding in subsequent years as well. This is aligned to the action research literature, which states that teachers, as reflective practitioners, conduct education action research to

“accomplish personal, academic, occupational and professional growth” (Thomen, 2005, p.

820).

4.3.2.2 The outline and structure of individual-teacher action research (a) Outline of action research cycles

Mc Kay and Marshal (2001) reveal that action research may be limited to only two cycles, where the second cycle is overlaid on the first cycle. The first cycle focuses on problem- solving interest and possibilities, while the second cycle focuses on the research interest and possibilities. Mc Kay and Marshal (2001) argue that both cycles are essential in action research in order to solve the problem identified, and to test the proposed method of solving the problem.

I have adopted ideas from Mc Kay and Marshal (2001) for the two cycles of the individual- teacher action research: the first cycle is for problem-solving interest and possibilities, and the second cycle is for research interest and possibilities. Each of the two cycles of the individual-teacher action research has four stages: observation, planning, implementation, and reflection (Mc Kay & Marshal, 2001). The first cycle is undertaken to inform the second cycle – findings from the stages of the first cycle inform the design of the stages in the second cycle towards addressing the problem identified, or to understand the issue being explored.

This is accomplished by providing new insights, demands, and proposed proceedings that are significant to addressing the problem or issue that is identified (Steketee, 2004). However, Steketee (2004) postulates that observation is a natural precursor to action research for the provision of insights that are necessary for effectively conducting Cycle 1. While the second cycle (Cycle 2) may not have a specific observation stage, Steketee (2004) reminds us that observation may be considered throughout the action research process to identify and rectify constraints to accessing reality.

56 The problem-solving interest cycle (Cycle 1) allows the researcher to be aware of the real- world problem in order to elucidate ideas of relevance to the research (Mc Kay & Marshal, 2001). Stage 1 of this cycle is observation, which begins with initial identification of the problem, followed by reconnaissance and fact-finding. Reconnaissance and fact-finding involve the researcher finding information about the nature and context of the problem (Mc Kay & Marshal, 2001). This level is achievable by identifying people affected by the problem, key stakeholders in problem-solving, and the cultural and historical background of the problem. Stage 2 is the planning of the action, which is independent of the problem- solving approach. Rossouw (2009) describes this stage as considering ways of studying the issue of interest, resources needed to undertake proposed action, and accurate methods of collecting data. Other roles of this stage include deciding whether to involve others in carrying out the action (Elliott, 1991), describing the basic ethical system to be followed (Elliott, 1991), and estimating how, when, and how frequently the outcome will be assessed (Parsons & Brown, 2002). Stage 3 is the implementation of the planned action, and Stage 4 is the reflection, which guides planning the next cycle (Cycle 2).

The research interest cycle (Cycle 2) is conducted by the researcher who has an idea, an objective, or a question from Cycle 1 that s/he has to pursue (Mc Kay & Marshal, 2001). The observation stage of this cycle is research-based, where the researcher engages with relevant literature to clarify issues, and to identify relevant theories that may be explored to answer the research question (Mc Kay & Marshal, 2001). This information is useful during the planning stage of Cycle 2, to guide the implementation of the action. The implementation stage is followed by the reflection stage, where planned actions are evaluated to find out if they have addressed the problem or issue.

In this study, I adopted the ideas of Mc Kay and Marshal (2001) to begin Cycle 1 with the observation stage. This stage included initial identification of the problem, reconnaissance, and fact-finding. It enabled me to identify the problem of Grade 9 Namibian learners having difficulty making sense of chemical bonding. Reconnaissance and fact-finding around this problem included analysing the newly revised curriculum, reviewing four recent Namibian JS examiners’ reports, observing traditional lessons on chemical bonding, and finding literature on possible teaching approaches for chemical bonding that had potential for improved sense- making by learners. These activities were undertaken to access information about the nature and context of the problem and were essential for planning both the traditional teaching cycle

57 (Cycle 1) and the intersemiotic complementarity teaching approach to chemical bonding (Cycle 2).

The observation stage of this study informed the planning stage by providing information on the pedagogy of chemical bonding, which is necessary for planning the action. This information includes the complexity of, the representational levels of, and the intersemiotic complementarity teaching approach to, chemical bonding, that were pre-requisites to undertaking the implementation stage. Since this action research involves teaching during the implementation stage, prototype lessons (lessons taught in a traditional way) were taught, as they reveal the nature of the problem (Feldman, 1994). These were the lessons (lesson plans in Appendix K) without visual-verbal intersemiotic complementarity. Teaching these lessons prior to the intervention was to ensure that changes brought about by the intervention would be noticeable. The implementation stage was followed by the reflection stage, which was the last stage undertaken in this cycle (Cycle 1).

Cycle 2 was designed to address the researcher’s interest in exploring the intersemiotic complementarity teaching intervention. Like Cycle 1, Cycle 2 had four stages: observation, planning, implementation, and reflection. Contrary to Cycle 1, the planning stage was undertaken first, as the data to inform this stage were already obtained from Cycle 1. Hence, the observation stage of this cycle involved transcribing video clips, followed by analysing the transcripts of the lessons taught. The significant difference between Cycle 2 and Cycle 1 was that the benchmark lessons (lessons considering the intervention) taught during Cycle 2 included visual-verbal intersemiotic complementarity, while the prototype lessons taught during Cycle 1 did not. Table 8 outlines the two cycles of the action research used in this study.

Table 8: Outline of the two cycles of the action research Cycle Research

question sub- addressed

Stage 1