Phase 2: The Teaching Experiment

The main objective of a classroom teaching experiment is to study students’ first hand learning experiences, to support and develop the learning process and to develop a domain specific theory of instruction (Cobb & Gravemeijer, 2008; Steffe & Thompson, 2000). A teaching experiment is usually carried out in collaboration with a teacher or group of teachers, and the researcher can also act as a teacher (Cobb, 2000). A teaching experiment can produce different and sometimes additional findings which randomized experiments cannot. For example, Cobb (2000) argues that a teaching experiment as an approach or methodology can provide a way of exploring possibilities of reform in the classroom. Additionally, in a collaborative situation, as is the case of the current research, a teaching experiment can inform the extent to which the collaborations (group work in this research) support the learning of students as well as teachers (Cobb, 2000; Cobb & Gravemeijer, 2008).

This enactment phase of the designed intervention in this study consisted of three main stages (sub-phases). In DBR literature these stages are usually termed as iterations or

12 _{Teaching experiment is a widely accepted and used term in DBR studies which differentiates it from}

other methods such as randomized experiments and action research. For more details see Steffe and Thompson (2000), Cobb (2000) and Cobb and Gravemeijer (2008).

micro and meso13 _{cycles. In the first stage of the teaching experiment the intervention} (CCCM) was pilot tested to ensure its success in actual classroom environments. The second stage after the pilot testing revised, refined and evaluated the intervention for its workability and added effectiveness in the classrooms. Finally, the third stage involved the actual teaching experiment which lasted for 10 weeks. These three sub-phases are reported in brief in the following sub-sections.

3.7.2.1. Pilot testing

The designed intervention was pilot tested in a different school to the intervention schools of the study. Informed consents were sought from the school principal, the teacher and students involved. Two meetings were held with the teacher to explain the research purpose and focus, and to get familiarity with the intervention and software used. The classroom teacher and students were separately trained by the researcher to use the intervention in practice. The intervention was piloted with 10 students for two weeks (including training, evaluation and reflection time). The intervention was evaluated in terms of students’ understanding of science concepts and attitudes towards its use. The participating teacher was also asked to reflect on the process and experience. Some of the research tools such as the achievement test, motivation questionnaire, concept maps, and teacher interview (section 3.6) were used to generate and examine the findings from this feasibility study.

3.7.2.2. Evaluation, revision and refinement

A detailed analysis and evaluation of the pilot-tested intervention was carried out after two weeks. The intervention was re-designed after the pilot and before it was ready to be implemented in the selected science classrooms. Based on the outcomes of the pilot testing, many aspects of the intervention and research were reviewed. For example, the concept of conceptual learning was made explicit in terms of Higher-order Cognitive Skills (HOCS) and Lower-order Cognitive Skills (LOCS) to define conceptual learning functionally and to focus the outcome of the intervention. The collaboration aspect of the intervention was reviewed to emphasise peer interaction, support and accountability. Some challenges arose in group work, such as competition, argumentations and

13 _{The word meso is derived from the word ‘mesos’ in Greek language which means middle or}

intermediate. In scientific terminology micro, meso and macro words are used to indicate very small, medium and very large scales of measurements.

meaning negotiation. These were thoroughly explored and settled based on additional literature. The ground rules (appendix A) for the implementation of CCCM were established to avoid and minimise the issues faced. During the pilot testing, both students and teachers reported positive attitudes towards the use of CCCM in their classrooms. The teachers commented that it could enhance students’ conceptual learning, motivation towards science learning and support teachers to develop professionally. A detailed reflective analysis was also done to ensure the feasibility and practicality of the intervention during the main experiment.

3.7.2.3. The main experiment

The third sub-phase (stage) of the teaching experiment phase of the research was carried out in the two science classrooms for 10 weeks. Formal consents were obtained from the school principal, teachers, students and parents before starting the experiment. The formal procedure to obtain informed consent (appendix G) included information sheets and consent forms. The information sheets explained the research focus, researcher’s and participants’ roles and participants’ rights. After getting necessary consents from the school authorities, CCCM was then assigned to the two intervention (experimental) groups as indicated in the research design (figure 3.5) of the study. The previous science achievement scores were examined to establish the equivalence among the four groups. The two groups (A and B) were also pretested as per the Solomon four-group research design to assess students’ learning and motivation levels.

Before the actual implementation of the intervention (teaching experiment), the two science teachers were trained for a week to make them familiar with the software and intervention. Then the intervention was introduced to students. Initially, students worked in small groups and practiced concept mapping and collaborative concept mapping on paper for two weeks in face-to-face situations. Students prepared paper- based concept maps, usually on chart papers, and discussed the maps in class. After becoming familiar with the idea of concept mapping, students shifted to the computer labs to use the intervention software. Figure 3.8 shows the two settings in which students practiced concept mapping in groups without the computer and during the main experiment. Although an additional iteration at the end of the academic session (after 6 months) was also planned it was dropped because of the time, efforts and distance between the research site and institution involved.