Abstracts - Earli

Evaluating implementation: What works and what doesn’t work in projects with a symbioticapproach of implementationCornelia Gräsel, University of Wuppertal, GermanyKathrin Fussangel, University of Wuppertal, GermanyJudith Schellenbach-Zell, University of Wuppertal, GermanyIn recent years, some endeavours have been made to disseminate research-based knowledge intothe practical field of education. Innovation projects based on theories of situated learning use a socalled "symbiotic approach" to point out the reciprocal dependency and profit of researchers andpractitioners. The content of the innovation is constructed jointly by researchers and teachers.Thus, the teachers’ ability and experience are valued in the process of implementation, and it is ofgreat importance that teachers consider themselves as responsible for the content and success ofthe project. In this paper we want to argue that the specific role teachers play in projects with anapproach of symbiotic implementation lead to specific consequences in terms of design andmethods to be used in these projects. Our findings stem from the project "Chemie im Kontext"(Chemistry in Context), a project dealing with a context- and inquiry-based curriculumdevelopment for lower and upper secondary schools. At the beginning of the project, we pursued akind of traditional empirical research strategy: We used questionnaires and tests to assess the viewof teachers and the effects of the lessons on student learning. A major finding of this first phase ofthe project was that this traditional research approach wasn’t appropriate to our symbioticimplementation strategy, as it didn’t fit to teacher’s role in the project. Thus, we changed ourresearch methodology: We started a closer co-operation with teachers concerning the planning ofresearch; we offered support and tools for teachers’ own research activities and we used differentforms of interviews. These changes will be discussed with respect to the "appropriateness ofresearch in implementation projects".How do teacher’s accept the portfolio-method as a tool to support and evaluate professionaldevelopment? Findings from a cooperative quality development programAnja Friedrich, Leibniz-Institute for Science Education (IPN), GermanyChristian Ostermeier, Leibniz-Institute for Science Education (IPN), GermanyUta Meentzen, Leibniz-Institute for Science Education (IPN), GermanyImke Krebs, Leibniz-Institute for Science Education (IPN), GermanyIn this paper we refer to the use of the portfolio-method to support and evaluate teacherprofessional development. Our study draws on data from the German program "Increasing theEfficiency of Mathematics and Science instruction" (SINUS-Transfer). This program’s approachrequires teachers to improve their teaching in a cooperative manner and with regard to didacticalproblem areas in classrooms. In order to support teachers working in the program we developed acustomized portfolio concept. The so-called "subject department portfolio" requires teachers ofone school to collaboratively maintain a portfolio. Colleagues keep their shared goals, further stepsto engage in as well as examples of classroom material including comments and reflections in thisportfolio. The instrument allows teachers to document and reflect on efforts to improve theirteaching and to make their thoughts and developments accessible to others. Additionally, theportfolio has the function to yield important information on the success of the program. In thisrespect the subject department portfolio serves as a tool for evaluation on a program level. Acentral prerequisite for a successful use of the portfolio with regard to those aspects, is seen in theteachers’ acceptance of the instrument. Therefore the main question we investigate in this paper ishow teachers assess the portfolio. Teacher as well as school principal questionaire surveys areconducted regularly within the evaluation of the program. There teachers were also asked to rate– 412 –