Action Research in Taipei Municipal Elementary School: Status-quo and Content Analysis

• Main Author: 王令行
• Other Authors: 吳明清
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2002
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/72166769545207691900

碩士 === 國立台北師範學院 === 國民教育研究所 === 90 === This two-part study sought first to examine Taipei City elementary school teachers’[n=498] perception of Action Research and the factors which influence that perception. Secondly, a content analysis was made of Action Research reports [n=456] published within Taipei City elementary schools since 1999. A random sample of elementary school teachers [n=498] from 142 public elementary schools in Taipei City were surveyed as to the effect of personal and school background differences on their perceptions of Action Research. Findings indicated high levels of awareness of the features of Action Research. Factors that influenced perception were level of education and professional position. Gender, years of teaching experience, and school size had no significant influence on teachers’ perceptions. Awareness level of the function of Action Research was lower than awareness of features, with education, position, and school size having a significant effect on perceptual differences. Other findings revealed that few teachers have experience with Action Research. Those with experience are typically head researchers who have conducted studies over periods of one to two semesters. Qualitative research is the typical paradigm used, and curriculum is the most common subject investigated. Teachers who have conducted Action Research generally feel that the most difficult parts are reviewing the literature and evaluating their results. Willingness to participate in Action Research was directly related to class load. Teachers recommended local inservice training including an Action Research practicum as well as research methodology. A content analysis of Action Research reports published in Taipei City elementary schools since 1999 [n=456], found that only one third could accurately be described as conforming to standard Action Research protocol. Research typically used Chinese language based literature, was conducted on a team basis, and reported in traditional academic style as opposed to Action Research format. Few researchers reported on action modification or professional growth as part of their Action Research, indicating that understanding of key elements in Action Research is still in its early stages.