Educational Action Research

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reac20

Fostering innovation through collaborative action

research on the creation of shared instructional
products by university science instructors

Brenda M. Capobianco, David Eichinger, Sanjay Rebello, Minjung Ryu & Jeff
Radloff

To cite this article: Brenda M. Capobianco, David Eichinger, Sanjay Rebello, Minjung Ryu & Jeff
Radloff (2020) Fostering innovation through collaborative action research on the creation of
shared instructional products by university science instructors, Educational Action Research,
28:4, 646-667, DOI: 10.1080/09650792.2019.1645031

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2019.1645031

Published online: 23 Jul 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 235

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=reac20
EDUCATIONAL ACTION RESEARCH
2020, VOL. 28, NO. 4, 646–667
https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2019.1645031

Fostering innovation through collaborative action research

on the creation of shared instructional products by
university science instructors
Brenda M. Capobiancoa, David Eichingerb, Sanjay Rebelloc, Minjung Ryud
and Jeff Radloffa
a
Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA; bDepartments of
Biological Sciences and Curriculum and Instruction, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA;
c
Departments of Physics and Astronomy and Curriculum and Instruction, Purdue University, West
Lafayette, IN, USA; dDepartments of Chemistry and Curriculum and Instruction, Purdue University, West
Lafayette, IN, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The purpose of this study is to profile four university science instruc- Received 29 November 2018
tors who utilized action research as a means of learning how to Accepted 5 July 2019
develop and integrate a novel curriculum innovation – engineering KEYWORDS
design – in their science courses. Data included curriculum maps, Collaborative action
lesson plans, notes from group meetings, and instructor reflections. research; science education;
Data analysis included document review and content analysis. engineering education;
Findings from this study suggest that action research effectively university teacher;
enabled the instructors to 1) establish shared ownership of the professional development
project goal – to improve preservice teachers’ learning of science
through engineering design; 2) continuously test, revise, and recali-
brate their shared instructional products; and 3) leverage multiple
sources of innovation. Knowledge generated and used by the instruc-
tors represented different kinds of knowledge and distributed exper-
tise resulting in products that were more useful and of higher quality
than products created by individuals working alone. Consequently,
this resulted in increased use of the products and increased instructor
commitment to improve them over time. By simultaneously enga-
ging in research and consequently taking specific action to inform
their practice, science instructors in this study successfully created
shared instructional products that both guided and enhanced their
classroom teaching.

Introduction
A common thread among the tenets of action research is the importance placed on working
towards the goal for action through the reflective process of inquiry and knowledge
generation, to create new practices (Somekh and Zeichner 2009). In generating research
knowledge and improving social action at the same time, action research challenges the
normative values of two distinct ways of being – that of the scholar and the activist (Somekh
and Zeichner 2009). For university educators, these ways of being are an integral part of
their practice, demanding the development and refinement of jointly constructed

CONTACT Brenda M. Capobianco bcapobia@purdue.edu

© 2019 Educational Action Research
 EDUCATIONAL ACTION RESEARCH 647

knowledge that may inform not only one’s practice but policies and programs as well. This
includes the introduction and adoption of new and innovative forms of curriculum and
associated pedagogies. In this study, we explore our experiences as university science and
science education instructors who engaged in action research while learning how to
develop and implement a new form of curriculum and instructional practice – teaching
science using engineering design.
In 2012, the National Research Council (NRC) issued a new framework for national science
education academic standards in the United States (NRC 2012). Embedded in this frame-
work is the introduction of science and engineering practices. These standards represent
a commitment to integrate engineering design into the structure of science education by
raising engineering design to the same level as a scientific inquiry when teaching science
disciplines at all levels (NGSS Lead States 2013). Engineering design encourages students to
construct refinable solutions to authentic problems using inquiry and cooperative learning
processes that allow students to explore for new understandings and to relate those
understandings to other concepts (Mooney & Laubach 2002). The introduction of engineer-
ing and corresponding new academic science standards has not only required in-service
teachers, administrators, and school communities to revisit and revise their curricula,
policies, and programs, but also placed increasing pressure on US teacher preparation
programs to do so as well. Consequently, this new reform has sparked opportunities for
university science and science education faculty to re-think and re-calibrate how and what
they teach in terms of science.
To address this challenge, a collective group of instructors joined together to propose
a solution that would not only improve the overall quality of professional training of
elementary (defined here at K-6 grades) preservice teachers but also preservice teachers’
science learning through engineering design. Brenda is a professor of science education,
David is an associate professor of biology, Minjung is an assistant professor of chemistry,
and Sanjay is a professor of physics. Our group leveraged a proven collaboration of faculty
responsible for a newly launched integrated STEM program to develop, use, and test
a series of course-based, discipline-specific engineering design-based science learning
experiences with over 240 preservice elementary teachers. To do this, we utilized colla-
borative action research to systematically identify a problem shared across four courses
(immersing preservice teachers in engineering design), develop and enact plausible action
plans, and reflect on and refine their efforts. As a result, we generated, applied and
explored new knowledge and engaged in iterative cycles of innovation over the course
two semesters within one academic year. In this study, we describe how we used
collaborative action research as of means of learning how to develop, integrate, and
innovate a novel curriculum and instructional strategies in our respective undergraduate
courses. Our goal is to illustrate how collaborative action research has the capacity to
support and sustain practice-driven innovation.

Research questions and purpose of the study

This study is guided by the following research questions: (i) What factors contribute to
university instructors’ development of shared instructional products through collabora-
tive action research? (ii) How does university instructors’ engagement in collaborative
action research foster innovation across courses? By becoming critically reflective of our
648 B. M. CAPOBIANCO ET AL.

teaching within a supportive collaboration, we aim to profile the different ways we

question our instructional decisions, invent novel learning experiences, and construct
and share new and useful knowledge about our practice.

Defining engineering design and connecting to NGSS

To better situate this study in a larger context, it is important to first describe what
engineering design entails and how it is represented in current science education reform
efforts in the United States. Engineering design is a recursive activity that results in artifacts –
physical or virtual – as well as processes (Bucciarelli 1994; Holt, Radcliffe, and Schoorl 1985).
Atman, Adams, Cardella, Turns, Mosborg, and Saleem (2007) identify multiple stages in the
design process including: problem scoping and information gathering; idea generation;
project realization; communication and documentation of performance results; and opti-
mization. Underpinning each of these perspectives is the general idea that the engineering
design process is problem-based, process-oriented, and product-driven.
Engineering design and scientific inquiry are similar in that both involve creative processes
and neither favors one particular method. Like scientific inquiry, engineering design is both
iterative and systematic. From a teaching and learning point of view, it is the iterative cycle of
engineering design, in particular, that offers ‘the greatest potential for applying science
knowledge in the classroom and engaging in engineering practices’ (NRC 2012, 201).
Embedding engineering design in the fabric of the US Next Generation of Science Standards
(NGSS Lead States 2013), represents a commitment to raise engineering design to the same
level as a scientific inquiry when teaching science disciplines at all levels.
To accomplish this goal, the NGSS framework outlines three dimensions needed to
provide students with high-quality science education. These dimensions include cross-
cutting concepts, disciplinary core ideas, and practices. Crosscutting concepts serve as
bridges or linkages across domains of science. Examples of crosscutting concepts
include patterns, cause and effect, and stability and change. Disciplinary core ideas
represent set of core ideas in science and engineering that span four major domains:
the physical sciences; the life sciences; the earth and space sciences; and engineering,
technology, and applications of science. The term ‘practices’ is used to stress that
engaging in scientific inquiry and engineering design ‘requires coordination both of
knowledge and skill simultaneously’ (NRC 2012, 41). For the science educator, this means
re-thinking what kinds of problems students investigate and how best to encourage
students to engage in engineering practices such as, defining and delimiting problems,
designing solutions to problems, and optimizing design solutions. In a traditional biol-
ogy classroom, students might develop a model to describe the movement of matter
among plants, animals, decomposers, and the environment as a plausible scientific
inquiry. Yet, for engineering design, students might use what they know about decom-
position to devise an efficient process for making compost that can accommodate
farmers whose fields are damaged by a natural disaster. This task includes the applica-
tion of developing and using models as a practice; the interdependent relationships in
ecosystems as a disciplinary core idea; and systems and system models as a crosscutting
concept. Collectively, these three threads represent the intentional integration of three
dimensions or what is referred to as ‘three-dimensional learning’; allowing students to
 EDUCATIONAL ACTION RESEARCH 649

actively engage with the practices and apply the crosscutting concepts to deepen their
understanding of core ideas in science (NGSS Lead States 2013).

Situating collaborative action research

Historically, collaborative action research has been a common practice among teachers
and university researchers and further characterized as systematic inquiry involving
a team of teachers and university researchers working as ‘equal partners’ (Bruce,
Flynn, and Stagg-Peterson 2011; Capobianco 2002, 2007; Capobianco and Feldman
2006; Goodnough 2011; Ross, Rolheiser, and Hogaboam-Gray 1999; Sagor 1992).
Capobianco (2007) described the following key characteristics of collaborative action
research among teachers and university researchers:

(1) Research problems are mutually defined by the teachers and the researcher;
(2) Teachers and researchers collaborate in investigating solutions to classroom-
based problems;
(3) Teachers develop research competencies associated with data collection, analysis,
and interpretation, and the researcher (re)educates herself or himself in research
methodologies that are most appropriate to the context;
(4) The researcher and teachers share and shape their ongoing, personal, and critical
reflections as an integral part of the research process;
(5) Results from the collaborative action research contribute to the collective knowl-
edge of teaching and learning and are shared with others with an eye to
improving education practices (p. 6).

Similar to other collaborative action research studies among university instructors, the
characteristics of mutually defined problems, the use of research methodologies, the
engagement in critical reflection, and the generation of collective new knowledge are
most relevant to our university setting (Lofthouse, Flanagan, and Wigley 2016; Taylor
et al. 2012). In this study, we situate collaborative action research in the context of
a university setting and focus on our work as university instructors. In this manner, we
operate simultaneously as researchers of our own practice and build our understanding
of teaching and learning as well as how research methods can be utilized to generate
evidence-based outcomes specific to our classroom practice. We deem our work as
collaborative in that we apply ‘joint labor in working towards a common goal’, and were
proactive in merging together knowledge production and problem-solving (Lofthouse
and Thomas 2017). Together, we articulate and test our conceptual thinking that
emerges from practice then use this thinking reciprocally to develop new, shared
instructional products.

Theoretical framework
This study draws upon the work of Morris and Hiebert (2011) and their framework for
creating shared instructional products. Three features that enable the development and
refinement of jointly constructed knowledge products are central to their work. These
features include 1) shared ownership of the problems that the products are intended to
650 B. M. CAPOBIANCO ET AL.

address; 2) research about the products involving small tests of small changes to make
refinements; and 3) the products derive from multiple sources of innovation. In our
project, the first feature, shared ownership of problems, involves a concerted effort to
involve science and education instructors in trying to improve the preparation of
elementary science teachers. We share a common starting point or problem – how
can we improve elementary preservice teachers’ learning of science and learning to
teach science through engineering design? As a collective group, the team works to
develop design challenges (lesson activities) that infuse specific science concepts and
require students to apply these concepts within a design-based task. At the heart of this
work is the development of new curriculum and understanding of the extent to which
the ideals of this curriculum are being developed, implemented, and supported by
factors that enable innovation (Rogan and Grayson 2002).
The second feature addresses the research methods commonly used to test and
revise shared products. For our project, research methods entail the use of mixed
methods, iterative pilot testing, and refinement of all shared instructional products. In
short, emphasis is placed on the production of useful knowledge for enhanced science
teaching and learning through a research-informed approach. The third feature entails
the participation of participants who possess and can contribute to different kinds of
knowledge. Taking advantage of different kinds of knowledge and expertise results in
products that are more useful and of higher quality than products created by individuals
working alone (Argyris and Schon 1996). The project includes the participation of faculty
from biology, chemistry, physics, and science and engineering education who provide
unique levels of expertise and knowledge related to science and engineering.
Collectively, we develop high-quality standards- and design-based materials for preser-
vice teachers to enact in our prospective classrooms. After completing their science
courses and once in the science methods course, preservice teachers learn to plan,
develop, and enact their own design tasks in field experience with elementary students
and teachers. Consequently, the products that are jointly constructed are owned by
faculty and students, which in turn, results in increased use of the products and
increased commitment to improve them over time. It is our goal that preservice teachers
will use engineering design activities to build students’ learning of science by making
connections between the science ideas and the engineering design task, resulting in
students using science to inform or explain their designs.

Context of the study

The context of this study is an elementary teacher education program with an average
annual class enrollment of 125 elementary education students (preservice teachers) at
a large, research-intensive university located in the central Midwest of United States. All
elementary preservice teachers are required to complete a sequence of 15 credits in
science. The general progression of science courses includes a two-course sequence of
introductory biology, chemistry, physics, and earth and atmospheric sciences. Preservice
teachers then participate in a field-based elementary science methods course emphasiz-
ing the integration of engineering design.
 EDUCATIONAL ACTION RESEARCH 651

Project team, advisory board, and external evaluators

Our collaborative action research group is situated within a large, nationally funded
research and dissemination project. The aim of the project is to promote the develop-
ment, use, and testing of discipline-specific engineering design-based science curricular
tasks that engage and improve learning of engineering practices among elementary
preservice teachers. The main research goal of the project is to examine longitudinally
how preservice elementary science teachers learn about engineering design as well as
how to teach science using engineering design. Underpinning this goal is an effort to
explore how faculty generate, test, and reflect on the development and implementation
of their innovative instructional products that support preservice elementary science
teachers’ knowledge and practice with using engineering design. The study presented
here represents work generated in the first year (two academic semesters) of the project.
The project is comprised of three groups of individuals: 1) the project team; 2) the
advisory board; and 3) the external evaluators. The project team includes two distinct
sub-groups of individuals. The first group is the core group of university instructors.
The second group includes project researchers conducting research on the larger
project, specifically how preservice teachers learn principles of engineering and science.
Both the course instructors and researchers met on a biweekly basis and were financially
supported by the grant.
The advisory board is composed of nationally and internationally recognized scholars
and early-career innovators in engineering design and science learning. These indivi-
duals provided expertise and support to the larger project team once a year. The
external evaluators conducted formative and summative assessments of the quality
and propagation of project deliverables and checked in with the project team several
times throughout the academic year.

Science and science education instructors as researchers

Our collaborative action research group comprised of three science instructors and one
science education instructor. The science instructors included tenure-track faculty from
biology, chemistry, and physics who hold joint appointments in the College of
Education. A joint appointment entails a faculty member having a partial appointment
in a science discipline (e.g. 60% to 75%) and a partial appointment in curriculum and
instruction (e.g. 25% to 40%). Each faculty member is responsible for directing one or
more undergraduate science courses for elementary education majors. David is
a tenured faculty member with over 25 years of teaching experience and he teaches
a two-course sequence in introductory biology. Minjung is a non-tenured faculty mem-
ber in chemistry with 2 years of teaching experience in chemistry. She teaches an
introductory chemistry course. Sanjay is a tenured faculty member in physics with
about 20 years of teaching experience and he teaches a course on introductory physics
for elementary education majors. Brenda is a tenured faculty member in science educa-
tion with a courtesy appointment in engineering education with almost 20 years of
teaching an undergraduate elementary science methods course and graduate courses in
action research.
652 B. M. CAPOBIANCO ET AL.

The role of collaborative action research

The project team, including the course instructors and educational researchers, met on
a biweekly basis. In this setting, the course instructors served as both active participants
at each meeting and researchers of their own practice. The meetings were facilitated by
Brenda who had prior experience with facilitating collaborative action research groups
and who also served as the principal investigator of the larger project. During this time,
we discussed the overall goals and objectives of the larger project and mapped these
constructs with our project timeline. In addition, we reviewed our original research
questions and strategically focused on generating and maintaining an entry point for
our collaborative action research efforts. This entry point became the group’s mutually
agreed upon the problem – devising ways to integrate engineering design in our
courses to improve preservice teachers’ science learning and teaching. Brenda emailed
a tentative agenda 1 week before each meeting, inviting members to share discussion
and/or action items. When the group convened, Brenda started each meeting by
revisiting the project goals and objectives. As the meetings progressed, members of
the collaborative action research group revisited the mutually agreed upon the problem
or central theme as an anchor for crafting starting points for action research and
reflecting on data gathered from our inquiries. Some of these meetings entailed mem-
bers ‘reporting out’ the progress of their efforts, observations of their students, and
challenges they may have been experiencing, which we share in our findings.
For the purpose of this study, it is important to note that we focus on the instructors’
efforts with developing, implementing, and reflecting on their individual and collective
attempts at integrating engineering design in their respective courses during the
first year of the project (two academic semesters). During the first semester, we reflected
on our original problem with determining how to integrate engineering design in our
courses, reviewed literature related to engineering design, devised and enacted feasible
action plans, made observations of our efforts, and reflected on what we learned. During
the second semester, we used what we learned from our first iteration of action research
to inform our second enactment by refining our curriculum units and implementing
these tasks with a new cohort of students. In this context, the instructors functioned
simultaneously as teachers and researchers solving problems, creating change, and
accomplishing a shared goal for improving preservice teachers’ learning of science
through design. Our model for collaborative action research draws from the work of
Pedrosa-de-Jesus, Guerra, and Watts (2017) whereby emphasis was placed on three
features: 1) the instructors’ academic growth; 2) a close relationship among all project
team members (i.e. instructors, researchers, external project evaluators, and advisory
board members); and 3) the reflexivity spiral of strategic planning, implementation, and
critical reflection on iterative cycles of feedback from team members and external
stakeholders (i.e. external evaluation team and advisory board). Hence, the bulk of our
project meeting time entailed long and serious conversations (Feldman 1999) about
how we, as instructors, were making meaning of engineering design, what it entailed,
what kinds of instructional practices align with design, and how we could generate
rigorous yet conceptually appropriate design-based experiences in our undergraduate
science courses.
 EDUCATIONAL ACTION RESEARCH 653

What ultimately gave the greatest cohesion to our group was presenting our work to our
external stakeholders (i.e. advisory board and external evaluators) and formulating manu-
scripts for publication and papers for conference presentations. In preparing for these
events, we spent time not only in selecting and interpreting data from individual instructor’s
inquires but also in identifying values and practices that seemed to be common to the
various inquiries that individual members perceived as innovative and productive. We also
engaged in a common program of reading and discussing research articles on engineering
design and the development of innovative instructional products. These collaborative
practices led to confirmation from our stakeholders that we were meeting our goals and
objectives and the dissemination of our efforts through subsequent publications (Radloff
et al. forthcoming) and conference presentations (Capobianco and Radloff 2018).

Methods
During the course of this study, the project team met biweekly to clarify starting points for
the implementation of design experiences in the undergraduate science courses; establish
a calendar for both implementation and research activities; and more importantly, share the
progress, challenges, and insights of the instructors’ planned and enacted attempts at
integrating engineering design in their undergraduate science courses. During this time,
several qualitative data collection methods were employed by the course instructors.
Qualitative data included our individual curriculum maps, lesson plans and assess-
ments; formal notes from bi-weekly group meetings; and our personal reflections.
Individual curriculum maps represented comprehensive multi-day lesson plans that
included the instructor’s instructional goals, objectives, core disciplinary ideas, science
and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, a progression of lesson activities,
a design brief or narrative, and formative and summative forms of assessment. These
documents included detailed accounts of when and how to implement both inquiry-
and engineering design-based experiences for students within a particular unit of study
of each respective course. We used the maps not only to guide our implementation of
the unit but also to highlight different phases within the engineering design process and
respective engineering practices we wanted to integrate throughout the unit.
Formal notes from bi-weekly group meetings were maintained over the course of the
study. These notes represented an active record of our dialogue including our questions,
ideas, and concerns shared on a regular basis. At the end of the year, we prepared
individual comprehensive reflections of our efforts with generating, implementing, and
assessing our engineering design-based learning experience. We framed our reflections
around three areas: 1) curriculum development, 2) curriculum implementation, and 3)
transportability or the ability of the curriculum to be implemented by instructors from
other universities. Examples of prompts included the following: What were your lesson
objectives? How did you leverage your lecture and lab time to meet these design-
specific objectives? How did you determine where and when to integrate this design
experience in your curriculum? Which aspects are critical for faculty from other institu-
tions to know when developing and implementing a design experience? How you might
improve your next implementation of this design experience?
We used what Feldman et al. (2018) refer to as ‘constructive methods of data analysis’ (p.
185). This approach included iterative cycles of four systematic steps: 1) reading and re-
654 B. M. CAPOBIANCO ET AL.

reading curriculum maps, meeting notes, and our reflections; 2) identifying important and/or
complex details about our curriculum development and implementation; 3) presenting data
that directly responded to how our engagement in action research supported the develop-
ment of shared instructional products and innovation within our practice; and 4) interpreting
data and drawing conclusions. As we read and re-read multiple data sources, we maintained
analytic memos that led to coding and reducing text into manageable content categories that
led to the eventual merging of our conceptual ideas (Miles and Huberman 1994; Saldana
2015). This approach was complemented by purposeful attempts to critique our new under-
standings generated from our analysis. During this time, we conducted peer debriefs with
fellow researchers to ensure trustworthiness of the data (Creswell and Miller 2000). It was
during this time that we shared our formative interpretations of the data to either confirm or
refute our findings.

Findings and discussion

The aim of our study is to describe the different ways our engagement in collaborative
action research supported our efforts to create innovative knowledge products across
our respective courses. What follows is a description of our courses and the collaborative
action research processes we engaged in including the establishment of our starting
points for action research, our action plans for implementation of the engineering
design-based units, and observations and reflections of our efforts. Table 1 provides
a brief overview of each course including the number of students, the course structure,
and the number of teaching assistants.
We integrated vignettes from our collaborative bi-weekly meetings and text from our
curriculum maps to illustrate our findings. We then describe the distinct ways our
engagement in collaborative action research supported our work and allowed for
innovation in both our practice and across the project.

Biology 206
David’s course is one of a two-course sequence in biology that entails a comprehensive
introduction to life science concepts for elementary education majors. Inquiry-based
science instruction is a signature form of pedagogy for David. Labs include investigations

Table 1. Profiles of undergraduate science courses.

Course profile David Minjung Sanjay Brenda
Course title Biology 206 Chemistry 200 Physics 215 Education 365
Numbers of 150 40 70 25
students ~ 8 lab sections ~ 2 lab sections ~ 3 lab sections ~ 3 sections
Class structure Lecture (1 hr/week) Lecture (1 hr/week) Lecture (1 hr/week) Lecture and lab are
Lab (4 hrs/week) Lab (3 hrs/week) Lab (3 hrs/week) blended to make 2 hrs/
day twice weekly
Number of 12–15 Undergraduate 2 Graduate TAs 1 Graduate TA No TAs
teaching TAs Attend a teaching Weekly meeting
assistants and Weekly meeting seminar Reflective
training Extensive, formal Guided instruction discussions with
training by course course instructor
instructor
 EDUCATIONAL ACTION RESEARCH 655

into topics including but not limited to genetics, living things, and the human body. The
course also includes both formal and informal science experiences (e.g. field trips). The
course enrollment ranges from 120 to 150 undergraduate students that span 8 lab sections
that are facilitated by approximately 12 to 15 undergraduate and graduate teaching
assistants and one lab coordinator.
During one of our earliest meetings, David shared his concerns for creating a new
instructional product.

I have to admit . . . I don’t know if I know enough about engineering design to create a task
for my class . . . I’m still trying learn more about what design is and what it involves . . . I also
have a large staff . . . it puts a lot of constraints on how innovative I can be. Because it is not
just me that is teaching that [the innovation] . . . one of the challenges is that I do not want
to mess with what I have.

David’s concerns focus on three issues: 1) having insufficient knowledge about engi-
neering design to be able to innovate; 2) incorporating something new into an already
packed curriculum; and 3) introducing teaching assistants to a new form of instruction
and the demand for added professional development. David wants to preserve the
integrity and rigor of his curriculum while remaining mindful of the constraints he must
work with in his practice.

Chemistry 200
Minjung’s chemistry course serves as an introduction to physical science concepts includ-
ing matter, atomic structure, energy, acids and bases, and chemical reactions. The course
enrollment includes 40 students and the support of 2 teaching assistants for 2 lab sections.
With emphasis on facilitating mechanistic reasoning and assisting students at finding
causal relationship among concepts, Minjung’s instructional approach favors a fresh per-
spective on how students engage in and learn chemistry. Excited by the prospect of
introducing a new unit in her course, Minjung approaches her ideas for innovation
cautiously. ‘I like the idea of creating a design challenge for my students but I’m wondering
if they’ll be able to recognize the differences between what we currently do in lab with an
engineering design experience.’ Minjung is receptive to the idea of creating a new instruc-
tional product but questions her students’ capacity to understand design.

Physics 215
Sanjay’s physics course is an introductory course as well. The course enrollment is 70
students and the course includes one 3-h lab supported by one graduate teaching assistant
A hallmark of Sanjay’s pedagogical approach is immersing students in experiential ways of
learning physics, placing emphasis on inquiry-based science teaching and learning. Skills,
such as modeling, analyzing and interpreting data, and constructing evidence-based expla-
nations are commonplace in the physics lab. Sanjay’s willingness to incorporate design in
his course is limitless. ‘I see engineering design as a form of problem-solving and introdu-
cing this kind of thinking into my class seems quite natural and appropriate.’ Sanjay also
recognizes the uniqueness of incorporating design into his class. ‘It is different from what
656 B. M. CAPOBIANCO ET AL.

has typically been done for the preparation of elementary science teachers in the physics
classroom . . . so I am excited about that part.’

Education 365
Brenda’s elementary science methods course serves as the capstone experience for the
elementary education majors whereby students complete more than half of the under-
graduate science courses prior to attending the methods course. There are three to four
sections of the course offered each semester and Brenda instructed one section focused
primarily on teaching science using engineering design. Her class size ranges from 15 to
25 students.
Brenda’s instructional approach is two-fold: 1) immersing her students in design
challenges while encouraging them to deconstruct their lived experiences and 2)
modeling high leverage practices or what is called ambitious teaching (Windschitl
et al. 2012) by demonstrating how to scaffold students’ thinking as they progress
through a design challenge. During one of the earliest meetings, Brenda commented:
I am wondering how I might be able to use what all of you have done in her your science
classes to build on students’ understandings of design and show how to translate this into
practice. I’m wondering if there are key instructional models or practices I can use to show
this. By the time they come to me they are now teachers as learners . . . learners of
engineering design-based science pedagogies.

Brenda questioned how she might be able to leverage the work done by her science
colleagues and help students transition from learners to teachers.

Establishing starting points

The first step we took as a group was to familiarize ourselves with the literature on
engineering design. Each instructor reportedly heard of engineering design and had
facilitated K-12 in-service science teacher professional development on engineering
design, but had not fully operationalized the term within the current project. Hence,
reading literature on engineering design and engaging in reflective conversations about
our interpretations of the literature was critically important.
During one of the earliest meetings, Sanjay [physics instructor] talked about engi-
neering design as ‘a form of problem-based learning . . . an approach that has not been
written about a lot in physics.’ David [biology instructor] viewed engineering design as
‘an approach to solving a problem that has an authentic context . . . with real world
appeal’ while Minjung [chemistry instructor] characterized design as ‘an extension of
scientific inquiry and an opportunity for students to explore a range of concepts through
planning and carrying out investigations.’ Brenda characterized engineering design as ‘a
way of solving real world problems that yielded multiple solutions.’ Underpinning each
of these perspectives is the act of solving problems and this, in turn, served as an
instructional anchor for the team.
Together we uncovered essential features of engineering design and ultimately
used these features to shape our instructional products. We were able to compare
and contrast engineering design with scientific inquiry and began to demonstrate
 EDUCATIONAL ACTION RESEARCH 657

conceptual shifts in our understanding of engineering design. By doing so, we lever-

aged our strong understanding and applications of inquiry-based science teaching to
inform our tentative understandings of design. Sanjay associated engineering design,
as ‘problem solving with a purpose . . . where there is a client and you have to work
within constraints . . . and there are multiple solutions . . . no right answer . . . this is
different than inquiry.’ David characterized engineering design ‘as having an authentic
context . . . is collaborative in nature . . . we do a lot of group work in lab but this
[design] will require students to think a little differently about how the group will plan
for and solve the problem.’ Minjung described engineering design as ‘ill-structured,
open-ended, and taking different pathways to find a solution . . . which might be
similar to what we do in lab but the labs are not as open-ended or goal-oriented.’ It
was during this meeting that we shared our tentative ideas about design, merged our
working concepts with existing practices, and mutually agreed upon a central goal.
Capobianco (2002) refers this stage in collaborative action research as ‘finding com-
mon ground’. By exercising consensus building, we were able to successfully share
ownership over the problem and reinforce our commitment to improving elementary
preservice teachers’ learning of science through design.

Action plans
Drawing from our formative understandings of engineering design, we developed
action plans for implementation. This entailed ongoing conversations about how to
facilitate science learning through engineering design among preservice teachers. For
example, Sanjay often asked, ‘How do we connect the science content with engineering
practices?’ David questioned, ‘Which engineering practices might be a best fit for the
science concepts I want to emphasize?’ Whereas Minjung asked, ‘What makes modeling
in engineering different than in chemistry?’ Brenda questioned how best to prepare her
students to teach design by asking: ‘Which instructional practices help support our
students’ understanding of how to teach science using design?’ Many of our questions
required long and serious conversations about how we were making meaning of design
and assimilating our ideas with our current practice. These questions and subsequent
conversations led us to finding entry points in our curriculum for our respective
curricular innovations. For some of us, this meant using an existing unit of study as
a springboard for innovation. For others, this involved identifying a core disciplinary idea
and expanding further on the scientific concept or principle. Table 2 provides an over-
view of each of the science instructor’s action plan for implementation.
Our action plans mirrored our working conceptions of design, our course and
curriculum expectations, and the perceived limitations. David’s entry point for incorpor-
ating engineering design in his course was using an existing unit of study on the skeletal
and muscular systems and integrating a design challenge as a culminating activity.
My story line is taking the biology content lab on structure and function of the skeletal
muscular lab where students dissect chicken wings, creating two-dimensional paper models
of an arm and posing a challenge to them. I want them to focus on the content of structure
and function. If we show them a model of the system – say a simple prosthetic arm – can
they use the content of structure and function to critique that model . . . does that model
function like it is supposed to . . . we could purposefully insert some flaws to the models . . .
658 B. M. CAPOBIANCO ET AL.

Table 2. Overview of the instructors’ instructional products.

Features of
Instructional David Minjung Sanjay Brenda
Products Biology Chemistry Physics Methods
Brief description of To review and analyze To design a user manual To design an alarm To create a prototype
design different prototypes for plastic bottle system for a school of a life guard chair
experience of a prosthetic limb rockets, propelled by locker, such that for a local pool that
by identifying Alka-Seltzer © when the locker is meets safety
structural and effervescent tablets that left open, the user is guidelines.
functional strengths ensure a rocket alerted.
and weaknesses in launches between
the models and to 10–15 seconds and
recommend reaches at least 24
structural and inches from the
functional launching station. The
improvements to manual is accompanied
them. by a technical report
that includes findings
from scientific
investigations.
Learning objectives Biology Concepts Chemistry Concepts Physics Concepts Identify key discourse
Critique existing Observe how an Alka Apply underlying practices
prototypes/ Seltzer tablet reacts in science concepts (questions) utilized
model(s) of liquids and describe the related to electric by the instructor
a prosthetic limb for reaction at the circuits (complete Recognize how the
biological structural submicroscopic level circuit, current, discourse practices
accuracy and Harness the properties voltage, resistance, build on and
functionality of the acid-base power, Ohm’s Law, facilitate student
Identify what reaction and gas to series circuits, parallel learning during ach
strengths and produce an Alka Seltzer circuits, and design phase
weaknesses of the toy rocket combination circuits) Engineering design-
model in terms of Engineering Practice Engineering Practices based science
its structural Optimize the Alka Identify and discourse practices
accuracy and Seltzer reactions to formulate the (Capobianco, De
functional troubleshoot for problem Lisi, and Radloff
effectiveness product performance Brainstorm possible 2018)
Engineering design solutions Eliciting students’
Practices Formulate questions ideas with the goal
Developing and that would inform of the design task in
using models the challenge mind
Constructing Plan, implement, and Eliciting students’
explanations and evaluate solutions ideas and prior
designing solutions knowledge about
Planning and the context of the
carrying out problem and big
investigations ideas
Engaging in Inviting diverse
argument from solutions and
evidence supporting a range
of understandings
Encouraging
students to make
sense of their
observations
gleaned from
constructing and
testing
Placement within Culminating lab Culminating lab activity Integrative lab and Introductory activity
existing activity for a unit on spanning across lecture activity that Two class sessions
curriculum skeletal and multiple units on serves as an
muscular systems. physical and chemical introduction and
Two lab sessions properties, reactions, culminating activity
and experimental for a unit on energy
design Six to seven lectures
Two lab sessions and lab sessions
 EDUCATIONAL ACTION RESEARCH 659

how do you improve it and how could what you know about structure and function inform
your redesign (Meeting #4, Fall 2017).

Minjung, on the other hand, worked with a small group of undergraduate and graduate
students to brainstorm and create a plastic bottle rocket propelled by Alka-Seltzer ©
effervescent tablets that reinforced the practices of planning and carrying out investiga-
tions. Her instructional goal with this approach was to encourage students to explore
the ideal conditions for a chemical reaction.
My idea is to design something that can be done within a two-hour lab and covers chemical
reactions; how molecules move; and products of the reaction. We talk about chemical reactions
but we do not talk about the conditions for a chemical reaction. This design challenge is taking
the lab one-step further for my students (Meeting #5, Fall 2017).

Sanjay generated a relatively new activity on simple circuitry where he utilized existing
guided inquiry-based activities to ‘wrap-around’ the design challenge.
The activity I am thinking about may take about 4 to 5 weeks . . . students will be introduced
to the design challenge the first week of class . . . my story line is . . . things are stolen from
your locker, how do you alert them to the fact that their lockers are open? They will then go
through a discussion about how to light a light bulb. Then they go to look at parallel and
series circuits . . . they have to brainstorm a list of questions about the design problem . . .
I would direct them toward building an alarm system . . . they would use what they learned
from the lab activities on circuits and switches to create their solution . . . Keep revisiting this
as their knowledge matures (bulb plus switch . . . etc.). Can students use this knowledge to
improve their design? (Meeting #4, Fall 2017)

Sanjay leverages what students learn in their inquiry activities to inform their design
solutions. In this manner, Sanjay’s instructional innovation is embedded throughout the
unit of study and serves as a recurring learning experience for students.
Brenda focused on re-acquainting her methods students to the engineering design
process and encouraging them to look at the design from the perspective of the
teacher.
I’m thinking about starting off the semester by introducing students to a design problem
then encouraging them to de-construct their experience by recalling the kinds of questions
I asked during each design phase. I want them to reflect on what it was like to be a student
during the task but also to become mindful of what it is like to be the teacher and to recall
the questions I asked during each phase. If they can see how I am asking productive
questions that leverage their ideas, thoughts, and questions . . . .teaching ambitiously . . .
throughout each phase, they may be able to recognize how they can foster learning among
their own students.

By modeling ambitious engineering design-based science teaching practices, Brenda

was hoping that her students could make the connection to their eventual practice.

Taking action
While implementation varied greatly across courses, we remained committed to the group’s
shared instructional problem of improving preservice teachers’ learning of science through
design. For David and Minjung, the design tasks represented discrete opportunities for
students to experience elements of engineering design. David and Minjung strategically
660 B. M. CAPOBIANCO ET AL.

embedded their design experiences in existing units that were amendable to design while
upholding the demands of their instructional goals and objectives. Each instructor in this
case devoted two to three lab sessions (or portions of lab sessions) to exposing students to
a ‘different form of problem solving’. Sanjay, on the hand, chose to immerse his students in
a design experience over the course of 6 to 8 weeks. In this case, students were introduced
to the design challenge early on in the semester and continued through multiple iterations
of engineering design practices while completing inquiry-based activities that accompanied
the task. Brenda focused more on the teaching of design. Her action plan entailed engaging
methods students in multiple design experiences and de-constructing these experiences
from a pedagogical perspective. She wanted to encourage students to reflect and refine
their ideas about engineering design in the elementary classroom and eventually craft their
own design-based lesson plans.
Our curriculum maps (i.e. lesson plans, handouts, and assessments) constituted
public, changeable knowledge products that guided our actions toward helping
students achieve the learning goals. The maps suggested how to both teach the
lesson and present the shared knowledge about how best to do so. When revising
our lessons, we were simultaneously updating this knowledge, often by including the
rationale for changes. Knowledge of why particular instructional decisions were made
rather than just prescriptions for teaching, helped us understand our decisions and, in
turn, adapt the lessons to our practice. Serving as flexible, living documents, the
curriculum maps invited testing and further revising. Consequently, the products and
the knowledge they contained were considered changeable: tentative, always open to
improvement.
Throughout our implementations, we continued meeting to discuss and reflect on
our progress, propose small changes to our tasks, and exchange feedback with one
another. Serving as critical friends for one another was instrumental in helping us bridge
our theoretical understandings and practice (Stenhouse 1975). It was during these
meetings that we also received periodic input from members of the project research
team and external evaluators. The researchers shared evidence-based outcomes with us.
These data included student performance on content assessments and pre/post surveys
on students’ developing understandings of engineering practices. These data essentially
functioned as indicators of what students were learning from engaging in the design
experiences. Gains in science knowledge-based assessments confirmed, if not, reinforced
the positive effects of the changes we were making in our practice.
For David, this was particularly insightful. During one of our meetings, members of
the research team reported gains in students’ understanding of key science concepts
from pre- to post-administration of the biology assessment. David stated:

Well, this is re-assuring that the task is having some kind of impact. I really wanted my
students to understand the relationship between structure and function of the skeletal
system. I think this data confirms for me that the authentic problem of evaluating an ill-
functioning model of a movable joint stresses the need for students to know the working
relationship between the skeletal and muscular systems.

At the end of the first semester of implementing her approach to design-based peda-
gogies, Brenda learned from the external evaluators that her students demonstrated
 EDUCATIONAL ACTION RESEARCH 661

growth in not only their understandings of engineering practices but also the teaching
of engineering practices. Brenda commented:

I had a feeling they were ‘getting it.’ All of the methods students developed and piloted
design-based science lessons during their field experience. I am looking at their lesson plans
and my observations notes of their teaching, and I see how they are trying hard to include
key questions during different phases of the design process. It’s not yet seamless . . . their
lessons and practice teaching appear a bit scripted or regimented but that is common for
where they are in their development as teachers. You can see that they are testing the
waters and trying hard to express their ideas about teaching science through design. I’m
excited about these results.

Data from the external evaluators confirmed for Brenda that preservice teachers were
experimenting with what they learned in class and approximating their practice in the
field. Students’ lesson plans and observation data reinforced the positive instructional
steps Brenda was taking to enhance her students’ understanding of engineering design-
based science instruction.

Reflecting on action
Once we completed our first implementation and reflected on the data provided by the
members of the research team and external evaluators, we took time to reflect from
where we began our work. As a collective group of researchers, we were curious to
know in what ways did we each perceive our work as innovative. Sanjay highlighted the
transdisciplinary nature of the work the instructors have done. He stated the following:

What I find innovative about the overall project is the interdisciplinary nature of the people
coming from different disciplines working together towards a common paradigm that is . . .
the preparation of preservice elementary teachers. And this cuts across disciplines, not just
the science disciplines, but also those people who are engineers, and engineering educa-
tion, as well as, who are in the college of education.

David shared the following:

Part of what makes this innovative for me is . . . for years we had these individual science
content courses, but there has not been something that has been a shared problem or
focus that has brought all of the instructors of these courses together over extended
periods. For years, I have hoped we could bring the physics and chemistry and biology
and methods instructors on board [together].

For Sanjay and David, exposure to diverse perspectives and a focus on the larger, shared
problem represented innovation to the actions each instructor took in developing his/
her instructional products. David further stated:

Even though we have joint appointments, never have we been able to take advantage of
that and come together and really kind of help each other. That would be one more piece
of that; this has been probably one of the most exciting professional development oppor-
tunities I have been involved in.

While we acknowledged ourselves as experts in our respective science disciplines, we

reveled in the opportunity to take advantage of our existing appointments and work
toward improving how we prepare elementary teachers. By problematizing his own
662 B. M. CAPOBIANCO ET AL.

practice and reflecting with colleagues, David was able to make productive changes to
his curriculum. Feedback from members of the research and external evaluation teams
provided an added sense of accountability for David. He shared the following insight
with the team:

I have been involved in many curriculum development projects here, but never have I been
involved in a project where I am receiving immediate feedback from the evaluation team . . .
It is a great reality check, because we think often times, I have tried to change some of the
lab activities, and I think it is working better. But never have I done that kind of systematic
data collection that you all are doing, so I’ve never had the evidence to really convince
myself, but also others. And so having the evaluation part of this is extremely important.

Sanjay also admitted to taking the recommendation from external members . . .

quite seriously in reflecting on what I do . . . they actually gave me practical and meaningful
suggestions . . . examples of something I wouldn’t have thought about but they . . . not only
did they point out the problem . . . but they also came up with the solution to the problem
which makes a lot of sense.

Indicators that contributed to the instructors’ capacity to support and enact

innovation
According to Rogan and Aldous (2005), the capacity to support innovation involves
attention to a range of factors that may support or hinder the implementation of new
ideas and practices in an educational setting. Possible indicators may fall into a number
of different categories including physical resources, teacher factors, learner factors, and
the overall ecology of the educational setting. Based on our analysis and work with the
course instructors, we identified three factors or indicators that contributed to the
instructors’ capacity to support and enact innovation in their practice (see Figure 1).
The first factor was the instructors’ unyielding commitment to the overarching shared
problem accompanied by his/her level of confidence and overall commitment to teach-
ing, in general. Each instructor demonstrated expertise in his/her science discipline and
utilized this knowledge to design a unique instructional product that was novel, purpo-
seful, and aligned with the objective of improving preservice teachers’ science learning
through design. The second factor was the transdisciplinary nature of the team. Each
instructor held a joint appointment, meaning partial appointments in science and in
education. Unlike discipline-based science faculty, each science instructor respected,

Figure 1. Indicators that contributed to instructors’ capacity to support and enact innovation.
 EDUCATIONAL ACTION RESEARCH 663

Figure 2. University instructors’ pathway to the development of shared, innovative, instructional

products through collaborative action research.

valued, and understood the importance of educational research. This allowed the
instructors to function collaboratively as a cohesive group of teacher-researchers, suc-
cessfully generating plausible ideas, testing their instructional products, and critically
reflecting on their individual course implementations and their colleagues’ efforts.
Ultimately, this type of collaboration could lead to the team creating and refining
a flexible model for other university instructors to consider when revisiting and refining
their undergraduate courses and/or academic programs.
The last factor was the institutional infrastructure. Requiring preservice teachers to
complete multiple credit hours in undergraduate science courses was instrumental in
providing the space for the course instructors to collaborate on this initiative.
Furthermore, the structure of this program allowed the instructors to leverage their
collective expertise and enact iterative cycles of implementation, refinement, and reflec-
tion. We speculate that this institutional factor may well be the strongest contributor to
the instructors’ capacity to innovate and eventually sustain the innovation.

Features of collaborative action research that enabled the innovation of

shareable knowledge products
There were three distinct features of collaborative action research that supported the
development of shared instructional products (see Figure 2). The first feature was the
distinct shifts instructors made in how they oriented themselves to their curriculum and
classroom practice. The main goal of the larger project was to adopt reform-based
science instruction (i.e. NGSS) and this, in turn, represents a departure from currently
used and familiar, inquiry-based science instruction. Accordingly, this required science
instructors to rethink and reposition their instructional goals and objectives to meet this
charge. In other words, instructors were compelled to problematize their practice and
create space to explore new approaches of science teaching and learning.
The second feature was ongoing, collaborative meetings that involved the instructors’
long and serious conversations about practice (Feldman 1999). The meetings served as
a safe space to brainstorm ideas, share tentative understandings, and make meaning of
practice as a joint enterprise. In doing so, the instructors collectively articulated and
664 B. M. CAPOBIANCO ET AL.

tested their conceptual thinking that emerged from practice and then used this thinking
reciprocally to develop knowledgeable, shared instructional products. This supported
the development of new knowledge and validated the instructors’ work.
The last way was iterative cycles of constructive feedback that supported yet chal-
lenged instructors’ ideas, decisions, and next steps. The research and external evaluation
teams provided evidence-based outcomes that served as real-time indicators of what
and how preservice teachers were learning with regard to science and engineering
design. This ongoing feedback inspired the instructors to refine and adapt their tasks to
work effectively in their respective classes while allowing for variation in implementation
across the program.

Conclusion and implications

In this study, action research was used as a form of instructor-driven professional
development in an attempt to meet the demands of new science education reform.
Results indicated that collaborative action research served as an effective mechanism for
university instructors to jointly create innovative, instructional products, new knowledge,
and a localized theory for innovation. By engaging in collaborative action research, the
instructors reinforced a proven collaboration to take action on improving the prepara-
tion of elementary science teachers. By integrating new learning experiences and
conducting research on these efforts, instructors successfully redefined and recalibrated
what they do as architects of their own practice. In the end, university instructors in this
study became well-informed designers of the innovative reform-based science
curriculum.
Change is essentially a learning process, which entails the willingness to try out new ideas
and practices, to improvise, to be exposed to uncertainty (Capobianco 2011; Capobianco
and Ríordáin 2015), and to collaborate with and support one another. The work created by
the university instructors in this study suggests that a shared problem coupled by colla-
borative action research ensured a sense of cohesion that ignited opportunities for the
instructors to try out their ideas, improve when necessary, and support one another when
doing so. In short, the change forces in this project were those that were compatible with
the notion of the instructors as researchers of their own practice.
It should be noted that not all universities and/or university instructors have the
capacity to implement a given innovation to the same extent. At times, the number of
factors that hinder the implementation of new ideas and practice may outweigh the
factors that support it (Rogan and Grayson 2002). Factors, such as the lack of physical
resources and/or university instructors’ lack of interest or expertise may impede the
capacity to innovate. As such, attention must be given to confronting these factors and
seeking different entry points for the potential for innovation. Revisiting the ‘zone of
feasible innovation’, or where implementation is most likely to take place and its relation
to existing practice, is one possible strategy (Rogan and Grayson 2002). Moreover, those
most directly involved in the process need the opportunity to reconceptualize the
intended changes in their own terms and for their own practice. We reiterate the
valuable role collaborative action research plays in supporting these steps.
Implications of this study suggest that engaging in collaborative action research is
a versatile and accessible means of instructional innovation for science teacher education.
 EDUCATIONAL ACTION RESEARCH 665

For participating instructors, there was no one solution; each member was able to respond
differently to the shared problem based on his/her situated beliefs and knowledge con-
cerning engineering design and its application and utility within his/her existing curricula.
The interdisciplinary collaboration within an existing institutional infrastructure proved to
serve as an effective indicator for change, inviting opportunities for instructors to redefine,
recalibrate, and recognize their curricula as malleable and fluid.
Pugach and Blanton (2009) suggest that curricular coherence and faculty collaboration
are two variables that need to be addressed when studying collaborative teacher education
programs. Nevin, Thousand, and Villa (2009) concluded, ‘Teacher educators who are united
around a common goal – a concrete reason for being – experience the benefits of goal
interdependence’ (p. 572). Should university instructors determine that collaboration is
a vital component of many of its programs for pre-service teachers, the ground would be
fertile for developing an ongoing dialogue about how to best deliver instruction and realize
the goals of what we want students to know and be able to do upon program completion.
Blending the framework of shared instructional products with the use of collaborative action
research outlined in this study provides a potential framework for cross-disciplinary colla-
borations in higher education.
This leads to several questions to consider. How can collaborative action research
among instructors be fostered and rewarded in a higher education setting? Once these
collaborative relationships are established, how can they be replicated among university
instructors from different disciplines? To what extent can the university setting and its
contextual factors invite and sustain innovation through instructors’ collaborative action
research? What other factors should be taken into consideration to ensure scalability and
transportability to other teacher preparation programs? We hope the work of these
university instructors profiled in this study represents one of the many attempts to
contribute to a framework of collaboration and innovation in teacher preparation pro-
grams that, in turn, can meet the needs of new educational reform, and more importantly,
the prospective science teachers who must enact this reform.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work is supported by the National Science Foundation, Award #1626197. Any opinions,
findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

References
Argyris, C., and D. Schon. 1996. Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method and Practice. Reading,
Massachusetts: Addison Wesley.
Atman, C., R. Adams, M. Cardella, J. Turns, S. Mosborg, and J. Saleem. 2007. “Engineering Design
Processes: a Comparison Of Students and Expert Practitioners.” Journal of Engineering Education,
96(4), 359–379. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2007.tb00945.x
666 B. M. CAPOBIANCO ET AL.

Bruce, C., T. Flynn, and S. Stagg-Peterson. 2011. “Examining What We Mean by Collaboration in
Collaborative Action Research: A Cross-case Analysis.” Educational Action Research 19 (4):
433–452. doi:10.1080/09650792.2011.625667.
Bucciarelli, L. 1994. Designing Engineers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Capobianco, B., J. De Lisi, and J. Radloff. 2018. “Characterizing Elementary Teachers’ Enactment Of
High Leverage Practices Through Engineering Design-based Science Instruction.” Science
Education, 102(2), 342–376. doi:10.1002/sce.21325
Capobianco, B.M. 2002. “Making Science Accessible through Collaborative Science Teacher Action
Research on Feminist Pedagogy.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Capobianco, B.M. 2007. “Science Teachers’ Attempts at Integrating Feminist Pedagogy through
Collaborative Action Research.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 44 (1): 1–32. doi:10.1002/
(ISSN)1098-2736.
Capobianco, B.M. 2011. “Exploring a Science Teacher’s Uncertainty with Integrating Engineering
Design: An Action Research Study.” Journal of Elementary Science Education 22 (7): 645–660.
Capobianco, B.M., and A. Feldman. 2006. “Promoting Quality for Teacher Action Research: Lessons
Learned from Science Teachers’ Action Research.” Educational Action Research 14 (4): 497–512.
doi:10.1080/09650790600975668.
Capobianco, B.M., and J. Radloff (2018, October). “Exploring the Influence of Action Research on
the Creation and Use of Shared Instructional Products by University Science Faculty.” A paper
presentation at the annual meeting for the Collaborative Action Research Network, Manchester,
United Kingdom.
Capobianco, B.M., and M.N. Ríordáin. 2015. “Navigating Layers of Teacher Uncertainty among
Pre-service Science and Mathematics Teachers Engaged in Action Research.” Educational Action
Research 23 (4): 581–598. doi:10.1080/09650792.2015.1045537.
Creswell, J., and D. Miller. 2000. “Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry.” Theory into Practice 39
(3): 124–130. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2.
Feldman, A. 1999. “The Role of Conversation in Collaborative Action Research.” Educational Action
Research 7 (1): 125–147. doi:10.1080/09650799900200076.
Feldman, A., H. Altrichter, P. Posch, and B. Somekh. 2018. Teachers Investigate Their Work: An
Introduction to Action Research across Professions. London, UK: Routledge.
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.
Holt, J. E., D. F. Radcliffe, and D. Schoorl. 1985. “Design or Problem Solving-a Critical Choice for The
Engineering Profession.” Design Studies, 6(2), 107–110. doi:10.1016/0142-694X(85)90020-1
Lofthouse, R., J. Flanagan, and B. Wigley. 2016. “A New Model of Collaborative Action Research;
Theorizing from Inter-professional Practice Development.” Educational Action Research 24 (4):
519–534. doi:10.1080/09650792.2015.1110038.
Lofthouse, R., and U. Thomas. 2017. “Concerning Collaboration: Teachers’ Perspectives on Working
in Partnerships to Develop Teaching Practices.” Professional Development in Education 43 (1):
36–56. doi:10.1080/19415257.2015.1053570.
Miles, M., and A. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mooney, M.A., and T.A. Laubach. 2002 July . “Adventure Engineering: A Design Centered, Inquiry
Based Approach to Middle Grade Science and Mathematics Education”. Journal of Engineering
Education .309–318. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2002.tb00708.x
Morris, A.K., and J. Hiebert. 2011. “Creating Shared Instructional Products: An Alternative Approach
to Improving Teaching.” Educational Researcher 40 (1): 5–14. doi:10.3102/0013189X10393501.
National Research Council. 2012. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting
Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Nevin, A.I., J.S. Thousand, and R.A. Villa. 2009. “Collaborative Teaching for Teacher Educators: What
Does the Research Say?” Teaching and Teacher Education 25: 569–574. doi:10.1016/j.
tate.2009.02.009.
 EDUCATIONAL ACTION RESEARCH 667

Next Generation Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards. Washington DC: National
Academies Press.
Pedrosa-de-Jesus, H., C. Guerra, and M. Watts. 2017. “University teachers’ self-reflection on their
academic growth.” Professional Development in Education 43 (3): 454–473. doi:10.1080/
19415257.2016.1194877
Pugach, M.C., and L.P. Blanton. 2009. “A Framework for Conducting Research on Collaborative
Teacher Education.” Teaching and Teacher Education 25: 575–582. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.007.
Radloff, J., S. Guzey, D. Eichinger, and B. Capobianco. Forthcoming. “Integrating Engineering
Design in Undergraduate Biology Using a Life Science Design Task.” Journal of College Science
Teaching.
Rogan, A., and C. Aldous. 2005. “Relationships between Constructs of a Theory of Curriculum
Implementation.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 42 (3): 313–336. doi:10.1002/tea.20054.
Rogan, J., and D. Grayson. 2002. “Towards a Theory of Curriculum Implementation with Particular
Reference to Science Education in Developing Countries.” International Journal of Science
Education 25 (10): 1171–1204. doi:10.1080/09500690210145819.
Ross, J., C. Rolheiser, and A. Hogaboam-Gray. 1999. “Effects of Collaborative Action Research on the
Knowledge of Five Canadian Teacher-researchers.” The Elementary School Journal 99 (3):
255–274. doi:10.1086/461926.
Sagor, R. 1992. How to Conduct Collaborative Action Research. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Saldana, J. 2015. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Somekh, B., and K. Zeichner. 2009. “Action Research for Educational Reform: Remodeling Action
Research Theories and Practices in Local Contexts.” Educational Action Research 17 (1): 5–21.
doi:10.1080/09650790802667402.
Stenhouse, L. 1975. An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London: Heinemann.
Taylor, A., L. Puchner, M. Powell, V. Harris, and R. Marshall. 2012. “Reconceiving with Action
Research: Working within and across Communities of Practice in a University/community
College Collaborative Venture.” Educational Action Research 20 (3): 333–351. doi:10.1080/
09650792.2012.697390.
Windschitl, M., J. Thompson, M. Braaten, and D. Stroupe. 2012. “Proposing a Core Set of
Instructional Practices and Tools for Teachers of Science.” Science Education 96: 878–903.
doi:10.1002/sce.v96.5.