Pixel International ConferencesPixel International Conferences
This research aims to enhance local science teacher’s ability to manage learning activities that promote the implication of scientific knowledge and sufficiency economy principle to sustainable agriculture. Collaborative action research which was utilized to improve instructional process and professional development simultaneously contained the following stages; 1) the successful cases of sustainable agriculture management were analyzed to build a framework for learning activity development, 2) research participants collaboratively planed the research project together, 3) basic information was collected, 4) learning activities was designed, 5) the 4 stages of action research cycle (plan, do, observe, and reflect) were implemented in the classroom by the participating teacher and researchers, 6) the learning activities were revised after the implementation. The result of reflecting the successful cases of sustainable agriculture management indicated that scientific knowledge and skills played an important role in sustainable agriculture and sufficiency economy principle because they are parts of knowledge and rationality in the principle. The result of professional development showed that the teacher had an ability to organize learning activity that improved student’s inquiry skills by having students observe, pose questions and find the answers by themselves. The result of student’s learning indicated that student’s understanding of sustainable agriculture was at high level, student’s understanding of sufficient economy was at moderate level, student’s problem-solving skill was at moderate level, and student’s awareness about the importance of sustainable agriculture for the conservation of natural recourses was at high level. Moreover, the learning activities from this collaborative action research could be used in the school to which the context is similar.
Keywords: sufficiency economy, sustainable agriculture, professional development, collaborative action research;References:
[1] Abell, S.K. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. In S.K. Abell and N.G. Lederman (eds), Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 1105-1149.
[2] Adey, P., Hewitt, G., Hewitt, J., & Landau, N. (2004). The professional development of teachers: Practice and Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers
[3] Akcay, Behiye. (2009). Problem-Based Learning in Science Education. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 6(1) pp. 26-36
[4] Chung-Hsien Tseng, Hsiao-Lin Tuan, & Chi-Chin Chin. (2013). How to Help Teachers Develop Inquiry Teaching: Perspectives from Experienced Science Teachers. Research in Science Education, 43, pp. 809–825. DOI 10.1007/s11165-012-9292-3
[5] Geddis, A.N. (1993). Transforming subject-matter knowledge: the role of pedagogic content knowledge in learning to reflect on teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 15, pp.673-683.
[6] Gilbert, J.K. (2010). Supporting the development of effective science teachers. In J. Osborne & J. Dillon (Eds), Good practice in science teaching: What research has to say. 2nd Ed. New York: Open University Press, pp. 274-300.
[7] Golding, Clinton. (2013). The Teacher as Guide: A Conception of The Inquiry Teacher. Educational Philosophy and Theory. 45(1). pp.91-110 Edwards, Susan. (2015). Active Learning in the Middle Grades Classroom: Overcoming the Barriers to Implementation. Middle Grades Research Journal. 10(1), pp.65-81
[8] Fazio, X., & Melville, W. (2008). Science teacher development through collaborative action research. Teacher Development, 12(3), 193
[9] Gliessman, S. R. (2007). Agroecology : The Ecology of Sustainable Food System. FL. CRC Press
[10] Goodnough, K. (2010). Teacher learning and collaborative action research: Generating a “knowledge of practice” in the context of science education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21, 917-935.
[11] Ireland, J.E, Watters, J.J., Brownlee, J. & Lupton, M. (2012). Elementary Teacher’s Conceptions of Inquiry Teaching: Messages for Teacher Development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23, pp. 159–175. DOI 10.1007/s10972-011-9251-2
[12] Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (Eds.). (1988). The action research planner (3rd ed.). Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.
[13] Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S.& Hewson, P. W (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
[14] Cormick, R. (1997). Conceptual and procedural knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(1–2), 141–159.[15] Madhuri, G.V. Kantamreddi, V.S.S.N & Prakash Goteti, L.N.S. (2012). Promoting higher order thinking skills using inquiry-based learning, European Journal of Engineering Education, 37(2), pp. 117-123, DOI: 10.1080/03043797.2012.661701.
[16] Sagor, R. (1992). How to conduct collaborative actions research. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
[17] Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: fourndations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), pp.1-22.
[18] Smart, J.B & Marshall, J.C. (2013). Interactions between Classroom Discourse, Teacher Questioning, and Student Cognitive Engagement
in Middle School Science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24, pp. 249–267. DOI 10.1007/s10972-012-9297-9
[19] Wandersee, J.H., Mintzes, J.J. and Novak, J.D. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In D.L.Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning. New York: Macmillan, pp. 177-210.
Pixel - Via Luigi Lanzi 12 - 50134 Firenze (FI) - VAT IT 05118710481Privacy Policy
