A summary of research in science education — 1984

Journal of Research in Science TeachingVolume 30, Issue 2 p. 215-217 Comments and CriticsmFree Access Processing capacity then, relevance now: In response to Pulos Wolff-Michael Roth, Wolff-Michael RothSearch for more papers by this author Wolff-Michael Roth, Wolff-Michael RothSearch for more papers by this author First published: February 1993 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300209AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat References Case, R. (1985). Intellectual development: Birth to adulthood. Orlando: Academic Press. Case, R., & Globerson, T. (1974). Field dependence and central computing space. Child Development, 45, 772– 778. Collis, K. F., & Romberg, T. A. (1979). The assessment of children's M-space (Tech. Rep. No. 1). Madison: University of Wisconsin Graduate School, Research and Development Center. Daneman, M. (1982). The measuring of reading comprehension: How not to trade construct validity for predictive power. Intelligence 6, 331– 345. Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450– 466. Glanzer, M., Dorfman, D., & Kaplan, B. (1981). Short-term storage in the processing of text. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 656– 670. Lawson, A. E. (1983). Predicting science achievement: The role of developmental level, disembedding ability, mental capacity, prior knowledge, and beliefs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(2), 117– 129. Mitchell, A., & Lawson, A. E. (1988). Predicting genetics achievement in nonmajor college biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(1), 23– 37. Niaz, M. (1988). Manipulation of M-demand of chemistry problems and its effect on student performance: A neo-Piagetian study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(8), 643– 657. Pascual-Leone, J. (1970). A mathematical model for the transition rule in Piaget's developmental stages. Acta Psychologica, 32, 301– 345. Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction ( 2nd ed.). New York: CBS College Publishing. Roth, W.-M. (1990). Neo-Piagetian predictors of achievement in physical science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27 (6), 509– 521. Roth, W.-M. (1992). Comments to the “Methodological limitations for the use of expert systems techniques in science education.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29 (6), 629– 632. Roth, W.-M., & Milkent, M. M. (1991). Factors in the development of proportional reasoning strategies in concrete operational college students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(6), 553– 566. Volume30, Issue2February 1993Pages 215-217 ReferencesRelatedInformation

The Elementary School Journal Volume 84, Number 4 S1984 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 001 3-5984/84/8404-0004$01.00 Assumptions, even assumptions that seem logical and reasonable, can make it difficult or impossible for people to understand scientific concepts. Everyone makes assumptions about the way the world works, assumptions like "When the sky is cloudy and dark, it will probably rain" or "Bits of wood float in water." People often use those assumptions to explain how things work: "I can see myself in a mirror because light bounces off me to the mirror and off the mirror to my eyes." Such explanations or conceptions are often based on experience and common sense; however, experience and common sense can sometimes

Previous articleNext article No AccessA New Use of Randomization in Experimental Curriculum EvaluationHerbert J. Walberg and Wayne W. WelchHerbert J. Walberg Search for more articles by this author and Wayne W. Welch Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Volume 75, Number 4Winter, 1967 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/442821 Views: 3Total views on this site Citations: 26Citations are reported from Crossref Journal History This article was published in The School Review (1893-1979), which is continued by the American Journal of Education (1979-present). Copyright 1967 University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Joy Cumming, Adrian Coulston, John Elkins Planning for incomplete data collection in educational research, Research Papers in Education 2, no.11 (Jul 2006): 31–46.https://doi.org/10.1080/0267152870020103Barry J. Fraser Learning environment in curriculum evaluation: A review, Evaluation in Education 5, no.11 (Jan 1981): 1–93.https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-765X(81)90014-8VICTOR L. WILLSON Research Techniques in AERJ Articles: 1969 to 1978, Educational Researcher 9, no.66 (Jul 2016): 5–10.https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X009006005Frances Lawrenz The stability of student perception of the classroom learning environment, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 14, no.11 (Jan 1977): 77–81.https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660140113Frances Lawrenz Student perception of the classroom learning environment in biology, chemistry, and physics courses, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 13, no.44 (Jul 1976): 315–323.https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660130405William H. Ward A test of the association of class size to students' attitudes toward science, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 13, no.22 (Mar 1976): 137–143.https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660130206Frances Lawrenz The relationship between science teacher characteristics and student achievement and attitude, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 12, no.44 (Oct 1975): 433–437.https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660120415Wayne W. Welch The process of evaluation, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 11, no.33 (Sep 1974): 175–184.https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660110303Wayne W. Welch Review of the research and evaluation program of harvard project physics, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 10, no.44 (Dec 1973): 365–378.https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660100411Wayne W. Welch, Arlen R. Gullickson A Strategy for Evaluating the NSF Comprehensive Program for Teacher Education, School Science and Mathematics 73, no.99 (Dec 1973): 759–767.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1973.tb09166.xBikkar S. Randhawa, Lewis L. W. Fu Assessment and Effect of Some Classroom Environment Variables, Review of Educational Research 43, no.33 (Jun 2016): 303–321.https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543043003303Wayne W. Welch, Herbert J. Walberg A National Experiment in Curriculum Evaluation, American Educational Research Journal 9, no.33 (Jun 2016): 373–383.https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312009003373Gary J. Anderson Effects of Course Content and Teacher Sex on the Social Climate of Learning, American Educational Research Journal 8, no.44 (Jun 2016): 649–663.https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312008004649Wayne W. Welch, Herbert J Walberg Pretest and Sensitization Effects in Curriculum Evaluation, American Educational Research Journal 7, no.44 (Jun 2016): 605–614.https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312007004605Gary J. Anderson Effects of Classroom Social Climate on Individual Learning, American Educational Research Journal 7, no.22 (Jun 2016): 135–152.https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312007002135Herbert J. Walberg, Andrew Ahlgren Predictors of the Social Environment of Learning, American Educational Research Journal 7, no.22 (Jun 2016): 153–167.https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312007002153Herbert J. Walberg Predicting Class Learning An Approach to the Class as a Social System, American Educational Research Journal 6, no.44 (Jun 2016): 529–542.https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312006004529Herbert J. Walberg Class Size and the Social Environment of Learning, Human Relations 22, no.55 (Oct 1969): 465–475.https://doi.org/10.1177/001872676902200507Wayne W. Welch 4: Curriculum Evaluation, Review of Educational Research 39, no.44 (Jun 2016): 429–443.https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543039004429Herbert J. Walberg, Wayne W. Welch, Arthur I. Rothman Teacher heterosexuality and student learning, Psychology in the Schools 6, no.33 (Jul 1969): 258–266.https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807(196907)6:3<258::AID-PITS2310060307>3.0.CO;2-KRobert L. Baker 4: Curriculum Evaluation, Review of Educational Research 39, no.33 (Jun 2016): 339–358.https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543039003339Gary J. Anderson, Herbert J. Walberg, Wayne W. Welch Curriculum Effects on the Social Climate of Learning: A New Representation of Discriminant Functions, American Educational Research Journal 6, no.33 (Jun 2016): 315–328.https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312006003315Wayne W. Welch Correlates of courses satisfaction in high school physics, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 6, no.11 (Mar 1969): 54–58.https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660060112Wayne W. Welch, Herbert J. Walberg, Andrew Ahlgren The Selection of a National Random Sample of Teachers for Experimental Curriculum Evaluation, School Science and Mathematics 69, no.33 (Mar 2010): 210–216.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1969.tb08443.xHERBERT J. WALBERG, GARY J. ANDERSON The Achievement-Creativity Dimension and Classroom Climate*, The Journal of Creative Behavior 2, no.44 (Dec 2011): 281–291.https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1968.tb00118.xWayne W. Welch, Robert G. Bridgham Physics Achievement Gains as a Function of Teaching Duration*, School Science and Mathematics 68, no.55 (Mar 2010): 449–454.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1968.tb15413.x

This chapter reviews the current research on conceptual change in science education. The review includes research located in the DoRise system (Database of Research in Science Education) in Taiwan and articles published in selected international science education journals (Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Science Education, International Journal of Science Education, Research in Science Education, and International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education) between 1982 and 2012. Three hundred and eighty-three articles in the international journals (including 26 English papers from researchers in Taiwan) and eighty-six articles from Taiwan were analyzed (60 and 26 articles from Taiwanese and international journals, respectively). There are five major findings. First, most of the research follows the empirical approach, regardless of it being an international or national article. Second, physics was the main discipline examined both in the international and national studies. Third, about two thirds of the studies from outside of Taiwan used epistemological perspective to frame and present their study. A similar percentage of articles investigated the instructional perspective whereas nearly two thirds of the Taiwanese articles investigated the instructional perspective and only 28 % followed the epistemological perspective. Fourth, as for the research method, we found that qualitative data analysis was ranked first among all the methods we investigated whereas Taiwan appeared to integrate both quantitative and qualitative methods. Fifth, as expected, high percentages of published researchers were from English-speaking countries (i.e., the USA, Australia, and the UK). Taiwan was ranked third out of 31 countries with respect to the number of publications in this study from 1982 to 2012 but was the first non-English-speaking country. Recommendations for researchers and educators are provided.

Journal of Research in Science TeachingVolume 35, Issue 1 p. 1-2 EditorialFree Access Editor's note: Enduring scholarship and dialogue William C. Kyle Jr., Corresponding Author William C. Kyle Jr. School of Education, University of Missouri–St. Louis, 8001 Natural Bridge Road, St. Louis, Missouri 63121-4499School of Education, University of Missouri–St. Louis, 8001 Natural Bridge Road, St. Louis, Missouri 63121-4499Search for more papers by this authorJonathan Osborne, Jonathan Osborne Learning in Science Research Group, Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, The University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UKSearch for more papers by this authorJohn Leach, John Leach Learning in Science Research Group, Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, The University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UKSearch for more papers by this authorPhil Scott, Phil Scott Learning in Science Research Group, Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, The University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UKSearch for more papers by this authorStephen P. Norris, Stephen P. Norris Faculty of Education, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada A1B 3X8Search for more papers by this author William C. Kyle Jr., Corresponding Author William C. Kyle Jr. School of Education, University of Missouri–St. Louis, 8001 Natural Bridge Road, St. Louis, Missouri 63121-4499School of Education, University of Missouri–St. Louis, 8001 Natural Bridge Road, St. Louis, Missouri 63121-4499Search for more papers by this authorJonathan Osborne, Jonathan Osborne Learning in Science Research Group, Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, The University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UKSearch for more papers by this authorJohn Leach, John Leach Learning in Science Research Group, Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, The University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UKSearch for more papers by this authorPhil Scott, Phil Scott Learning in Science Research Group, Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, The University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UKSearch for more papers by this authorStephen P. Norris, Stephen P. Norris Faculty of Education, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada A1B 3X8Search for more papers by this author First published: 07 December 1998 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199801)35:1<1::AID-TEA1>3.0.CO;2-XAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. References Driver, R. (1997). The application of science education theories: A reply to Stephen P. Norris and Tone Kvernbekk. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 1007– 1018. Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61– 84. Norris, S. P., & Kvernbekk, T. (1997). The application of science education theories. Journal of Re-search in Science Teaching, 34, 977– 1005. Volume35, Issue1January 1998Pages 1-2 ReferencesRelatedInformation

Science EducationVolume 44, Issue 3 p. 217-220 Article Constitution and by-laws of the national association for research in science teaching First published: April 1960 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730440314AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Volume44, Issue3April 1960Pages 217-220 RelatedInformation

Science EducationVolume 32, Issue 3 p. 206-207 MiscellaneousFree Access Official minutes of the business meeting of the national association for research in science teaching. Sunday evening, February 22, 1948, Mandarin room, Chalfonte-Haddon Hall, Atlantic City, New Jersey Clarence M. Pruitt, Clarence M. Pruitt SecretarySearch for more papers by this author Clarence M. Pruitt, Clarence M. Pruitt SecretarySearch for more papers by this author First published: April 1948 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730320320AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume32, Issue3April 1948Pages 206-207 RelatedInformation

Science EducationVolume 38, Issue 2 p. 124-124 MiscellaneousFree Access Recently elected members of the national association for research in science teaching First published: March 1954 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730380202AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume38, Issue2March 1954Pages 124-124 RelatedInformation

Science EducationVolume 56, Issue 4 p. 573-574 Book Review Lawlor, Elizabeth Phelan. Research in science education, 1953 through 1957. New York: Teachers College Press, 1234 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, N. Y. 10027 (112 pages) $7.50 N. E. Bingham, N. E. BinghamSearch for more papers by this author N. E. Bingham, N. E. BinghamSearch for more papers by this author First published: October/December 1972 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730560425AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume56, Issue4October/December 1972Pages 573-574 RelatedInformation

I shall attempt to demonstrate here that the general categories of hermeneutics can be applied just as well to the natural sciences as to the humanities, and I shall explore the implications of this demonstration for both types of disciplines. In doing so, it will be necessary for me to raise some unfashionable issues about the objectivity and rationality of critical interpretations, and, as a result, I may appear to be cast in the role of advocatus diaboli. The value of lowering the critical barriers that have been set up between the human and natural sciences, however, will outweigh any incidental paradoxes that may crop up en route.

This chapter reviews social justice research in science education, focusing on the developmental trajectory and theories of method that drive the research. I address the following questions in this review: What are some of the trends in social justice citations? What methodologies are employed in social justice research in science education? What are the epistemological, ontological, catalytic, and tactical assumptions embedded in the research methodologies? What are the implications for future research in social justice in science education? After an analysis of trends, I discuss early framing of social justice in science education research. Then, I review five studies, focusing on the authors’ social and theoretical positioning and on ways in which critical methodologies blend scholarship and activism. I conclude with several implications for future social justice research in science education.

Even though humanity faces grand challenges, including climate change, sustainability of the planet and its resources, and well-being of humans and other species, for the past 60 years science educators have been preoccupied with much the same priorities. Adherence to the tenets of crypto-positivism creates problems for research in the social sciences (e.g., over reliance on statistical analyses leads to oversimplified models that strip away context and are reductive). Hypotheses and associated statistical tests support causal models that rarely predict social conduct or blaze pathways for meaningful transformation. In contrast to the mainstream of research in science education, I advocate a multilogical methodology that embraces incommensurability, polysemia, subjectivity, and polyphonia as a means of preserving the integrity and potential of knowledge systems to generate and maintain disparate perspectives, outcomes, and implications for practice. In such a multilogical model, power discourses such as Western medicine carry no greater weight than complementary knowledge systems that may have been marginalized in a social world in which monosemia is dominant. I describe research methodologies that have the potential to transform science education and our ongoing research in urban science education. I show how our research evolved to include studies of science for literate citizenry – expanding foci to address birth through death and all settings in which learning occurs – not just schools. Our research aims to be transformative since it includes interventions developed to use what we learned from research to ameliorate intense emotions, improve learning, and enhance the well-being of participants. I explain how we incorporated Jin Shin Jyutsu, a complementary medical knowledge system, to ameliorate intense emotions, become mindful, and improve well-being of participants. I also address research on meditation and mindfulness and their potential to improve learning, emotional styles, and wellness. In a final section I address three of the most important questions raised by colleagues, including scholars from Asia, as I exhort science educators to address grand challenges that threaten the Earth and its social institutions – the alternatives are catastrophic.

Journal of Research in Science TeachingVolume 6, Issue 1 p. 87-95 Article The teaching of science and the history of science† Leopold E. Klopfer, Leopold E. Klopfer University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PennsylvaniaSearch for more papers by this author Leopold E. Klopfer, Leopold E. Klopfer University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PennsylvaniaSearch for more papers by this author First published: March 1969 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660060116Citations: 100 † This paper, as well as the five following, were presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Chicago, Illinois, February 10, 1968. AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume6, Issue1March 1969Pages 87-95 RelatedInformation

Science EducationVolume 33, Issue 5 p. 366-371 Article Developing physical science experiences through the use of cooperative group processes† Thomas J. Blisard, Thomas J. Blisard Network College of Engineering, Newark, New JerseySearch for more papers by this author Thomas J. Blisard, Thomas J. Blisard Network College of Engineering, Newark, New JerseySearch for more papers by this author First published: December 1949 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730330508Citations: 3 † Based on the authors unpublished doctorate thesis, Developing Physical Science Experiences at Madison College with Special Reference to Housing, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, 1948, 155 pp. Paper presented at the New York City meeting of The National Association for Research in Science Teaching, February 15, 1949. AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume33, Issue5December 1949Pages 366-371 RelatedInformation

Journal of Research in Science TeachingVolume 34, Issue 9 p. 851-852 Free Access Editorial: Assessing students' understanding of science William C. Kyle, Jr., Corresponding Author William C. Kyle, Jr. Journal of Research in Science TeachingJournal of Research in Science TeachingSearch for more papers by this author William C. Kyle, Jr., Corresponding Author William C. Kyle, Jr. Journal of Research in Science TeachingJournal of Research in Science TeachingSearch for more papers by this author First published: 07 December 1998 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199711)34:9<851::AID-TEA1>3.0.CO;2-TCitations: 10AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. References Kyle, W. C., Jr. (1997). Editorial: What are the implications of shifting the focus of education from teaching to access, equity, learning, and technology? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 769– 771. Schwab, J. J. (1964). The structure of the natural sciences. In G. W. Ford & L. Pugno (Eds.), The structure of knowledge and the curriculum (pp. 31– 49). Chicago: Rand-McNally. Citing Literature Volume34, Issue9November 1997Pages 851-852 ReferencesRelatedInformation