Back to Basics: A Comment on Irzik

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.

Science deals with the world around us, and we understand, experience, and study this world through and with our bodies. While science educators have started to acknowledge the critical role of the body in science learning, approaches to conceptualising the body in science education vary greatly. Embodiment and embodied cognition serve as umbrella terms for different approaches to bodily learning processes. Unfortunately, researchers and educators often blur these different approaches and use various claims of embodiment interchangeably. Understanding and acknowledging the diversity of embodied perspectives strengthen arguments in science education research and allows realising the potential of embodied cognition in science education practice. We need a comprehensive overview of the various ways the body bears on science learning. With this paper, we wish to present such an overview by disentangling key ideas of embodiment and embodied cognition with a view towards science education. Drawing on the historical traditions of phenomenology and ecological psychology, we propose four senses of embodiment that conceptualise the body in physical, phenomenological, ecological, and interactionist terms. By illustrating the multiple senses of embodiment through examples from the recent science education literature, we show that embodied cognition bears on practical educational problems and has a variety of theoretical implications for science education. We hope that future work can recognise such different senses of embodiment and show how they might work together to strengthen the many roles of the body in science education research and practice.

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

Abstract: This paper begins by raising some questions about the purpose and scope of research in science education, followed by a commentary on the questions that have occupied the attention of most researchers in science education in recent years. The final section of the paper offers an opinion of some current strengths and weakness of science education as a field of research. The paper argues for a more generous interpretation of what constitutes research in science education and suggests that much remains to be done if the outcomes of such research are to influence policy and practice in science education.

Whither constructivism?—A chemistry teachers’ perspective

A high self-efficacy in teaching is sometimes used as a kind of litmus test of science teaching practices. However, the connection between self-efficacy and teaching effectiveness is not well established. Therefore, this study sought to investigate the connections between self-efficacy and enacted science teaching of preservice elementary teachers. More specifically, we sought to answer the question: Is preservice elementary teachers’ science teaching self-efficacy correlated to their science teaching practices? To investigate this question, preservice elementary teachers (N = 48) were given the Science Teaching Self-Efficacy Belief Instrument (STEBI-B) and asked to submit a video of their science teaching which was analyzed using the Local Systemic Change Classroom Observation Protocol (LSC-COP). Because LSC-COP produces ordinal data, the relationship between the STEBI-B and LSC-COP was investigated using the Spearman Rho correlation coefficient. Analysis of these data indicate no significant correlation between self-efficacy and science teaching practices. This study highlights the potential risk of using self-efficacy as a litmus test for positive changes in instruction. Although self-efficacy may not be directly related to science teaching practices in the population of preservice elementary teachers, we discuss ways self-efficacy may indirectly impact teaching practice.

The goal of this volume of Research in Science Education is to examine the relationship between science education policy and practice and the special role that science education researchers play in influencing policy. It has been suggested that the science education research community is isolated from the political process, pays little attention to policy matters, and has little influence on policy. But to influence policy, it is important to understand how policy is made and how it is implemented. This volume sheds light on the intersection between policy and practice through both theoretical discussions and practical examples.This book was written primarily about science education policy development in the context of the highly decentralized educational system of the United States. But, because policy development is fundamentally a social activity involving knowledge, values, and personal and community interests, there are similarities in how education policy gets enacted and implemented around the world.This volume is meant to be useful to science education researchers and to practitioners such as teachers and administrators because it provides information about which aspects of the science education enterprise are affected by state, local, and national policies. It also provides helpful information for researchers and practitioners who wonder how they might influence policy. In particular, it points out how the values of people who are affected by policy initiatives are critical to the implementation of those policies.

Students' Interest In Learning Science.- Interest in Science: Lessons and non-lessons from TIMSS and PISA.- Research-based Innovative Units for Enhancing Student Cognitive Outcomes and Interest in Science.- Girls and Physics: Dilemmas and Tensions.- Science Education Research: New Approaches and Links to Practice.- Contested Territory: The Actual and Potential Impact of Research on Teaching and Learning Science on Students' Learning.- Studying Science Teaching Practices in Relation to Learning: Time Scales of Teaching Phenomena.- The Potential of Video Studies in Research on Teaching and Learning Science.- Science Teachers' Knowledge, Practice and Education.- Pedagogical Content Knowledge: What Does it Mean to Science Teachers?.- Science Teachers' PCK and Teaching Practice: Learning to Scaffold Students' Open-inquiry Learning.- in Context - A program for Improving Instruction in Germany.- The Relationship of Capability Beliefs and Teaching Environments of New Danish Elementary Teachers of Science to Teaching Success.- A Beginners' Module of Integrated Natural Science for Secondary Teacher Students: The result of an Educational Reconstruction Process over Three Iterations.- Learning and Understanding Science.- Learning Process Studies.- Meaning Construction and Contextualization While Solving a Dynamics Task in the Laboratory.- Development of a Model of Formative Assessment.- Memorisation of Information from Scientific Movies.- Teaching and Learning Scientific Concepts.- Micro-organisms: Everyday Knowledge Predates and Contrasts with School Knowledge.- Using the Processes of Electrical Charge of Bodies as a Tool in the Assessment of University Students' Learning in Electricity.- Representation and Learning about Evaporation.- Learning from the History and Philosophy of Science: Deficiencies in Teaching the Macroscopic Concepts of Substance and Chemical Change.- Innovative Teaching-Learning Environments in Science Education.- Non-Formal Science Teaching and Learning.- Adults' Understanding of Analogy-based Exhibits in an Interactive Science Museum.- The Puppets Project: Using Puppets to Promote Engagement and Talk in Science.- Inquiring the Inquiry Laboratory in High School.- Developing Students' Views on the Nature of Science through Non-traditional Writing-to-Learn Experiences in the Science Classroom.- Models and Modelling in Science Education.- Towards a Validated Conception of Scientific Models.- The Development of Elementary Students' Understanding of Complex Ecosystems Through a Model-Based Approach.- Effects of Model-Based Teaching on the Durability of Pre-Service Teachers' Conceptions of Lunar Events.- Learning and Teaching about Ecosystems Based on Systems Thinking and Modelling in an Authentic Practice.- Discourse and Argumentation in Science Education.- Argumentation and the Learning of Science.- Students' Argumentation in Group Discussions on a Socio-Scientific Issue.- Exemplary Teaching of Argumentation: A Case Study of Two Science Teachers.- What Can We Learn from a Study of Argumentation in the Answers and Group Discussion to Open Problems?.- Teaching and Learning Science Using Multimedia and Computer Tools.- Evaluating Students' Multimedia Science Design Projects in the Elementary Classroom.- Technology-Enhanced Collaborative Inquiry Learning: Four Approaches under Common Aspects.- Visualizing the Quantum Atom.- Evaluation of the Hypermedia Learning Environment Physics for Medical Students Within two Different Settings.- The Role of Language in Learning with Computer-based Multimedia.

For more than 20 years the science teachers, the researchers in science education, the educationists and the other pedagogues have been acquainted with the model of educational reconstruction. In this model there are integrated three areas of this scientific interest: the recognition of pupils’ conceptions, the investigation of scientific conceptions with didactics branch approach and the creation of an educational content (Duit, R., Gropengießer, H., & Kattmann, U. (2005). Towards science education research that is relevant for improving practice: The model of educational reconstruction. In H. E. Fischer, (Ed.), The Developing standards in research on science education (pp. 1–9). London: Taylor & Francis; Duit, R., Gropengießer, H., Kattmann, U., Komorek, M., & Parchmann, I. (2012). The model of educational reconstruction – a framework for improving teaching and learning science. In D. Jorde & J. Dillon (Eds.), Science education research and practice in Europe. Cultural perpectives in science education, 5 (pp. 13–37). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers; Kattmann, U., Duit, R., Gropengießer, H., & Komorek, M. (1997). Das Modell der Didaktischen Rekonstruktion – Ein Rahmen für naturwissenschaftsdidaktische Forschung und Entwicklung.Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 3(3), 3–18). There is required to reconstruct the educational content for learning and teaching purposes. It leads to the educational structuring and to the clarification in scientific field. Therefore, in this contribution there is analysed a formation of the concept chemical reaction from the perspectives of the chemistry textbooks used in the 19th, the 20th and the 21st centuries in Slovakia. These findings could be useful in the process of comparison between scientific and pedagogical knowledge in this branch not only in neighbouring countries, even in the broaden European or worldwide content.

“Good luck on your first day as an assistant professor, Dr. Tanner! Have a great class!” On the wall above my desk, these words scream out from an otherwise encouraging note that is adorned with many exclamation points. This note has hung on my wall since my very first day as an Assistant Professor of Biology. As I was charging off to teach my first class, a senior faculty member who had been on my hiring committee slipped this note under my office door. In moments of pause years later, I still stare up at that note and breathe a sigh of relief that I had much more than luck to guide me on my first day as a college-level teacher. Although I continue to have much to learn—as all of us do no matter the number of years of teaching experience—I did arrive at the university with both formal and informal training in science education. I had had plenty of exposure to innovative pedagogical approaches, questioning strategies, and techniques for engaging diverse audiences in learning science. As a scientist educator, I had had the privilege of many years of collaboration with outstanding K–12 educators as well as a postdoctoral fellowship in science education. However, my training has been, to say the least, unconventional compared with that of my fellow junior faculty and unique in its preparation in regard to the teaching and learning of my discipline. It will not be news to anyone reading this article that university and college teaching is to a large extent a profession with no formal training. It’s startling but true that the majority of faculty members—and lecturers who often teach large numbers of students—have no formal training in the teaching and learning of their discipline. In fact, the hiring process in university science departments is structured primarily to evaluate a faculty candidate’s ability to be a productive researcher, with success measured in number of publications and magnitude of grant funds raised. Depending on the type of institution, for example, research university, state-level university, or liberal arts college, there may be a component of the faculty interview process that probes a candidate’s teaching ability, for example, requesting a statement of teaching philosophy and requiring the candidate to teach a sample lecture class. However, this sample lecture often screens for gross inadequacies, rather than looking for stellar innovations or pedagogical skills. This lack of formal, accredited training for university and college instructors stands in stark contrast to the requirements for a high school teacher who is charged with the education of students only a year junior to college freshmen. High school teachers in the United States must be credentialed as a secondary science teacher, demonstrate subject matter competency in every subject that they will be teaching, and must continually engage in professional development in the teaching and learning of their discipline throughout their career as a science teacher. With the 2002 federal No Child Left Behind legislation, the onus is upon each precollege science teacher to become “highly qualified” in terms of formal university-level training in science education. However, no such required professional training or measurable standards for teaching are required in institutions of higher education. Many policy documents have suggested standards of teaching practice in postsecondary science education (National Research Council, 1996, 1997; Siebert and McIntosh, 2001), but the extent of implementation of these ideals is unclear and has gone relatively unstudied, although national and regional accreditation boards do look at outcomes, asking colleges and universities to assess what their students have gained from four years of study at their institutions. Nonetheless, there is a striking reversal of accountability that happens when one crosses the precollege teaching to college-level teaching boundary (Table 1). During the K–12 school years, society expects K–12 teachers to be responsible for student learning. Salaries of teachers in many states are tied to student test scores, and poor student performance can potentially invoke penalties. At a college or university, several variables in the educational universe shift. Students are the ones responsible for learning. The evaluation and compensation of college-level teachers is not DOI: 10.1187/cbe.05–12–0132 Address correspondence to: Kimberly Tanner (kdtanner@sfsu.edu). CBE—Life Sciences Education Vol. 5, 1–6, Spring 2006

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

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

A Forum for the Science Education Community's Continual Self‐Renewal

How should we think about the body in science education? What ought it mean to be alive and live within epistemologies and pedagogies? What does it mean to be human in science education? In response to Auli Arvola Orlander and Per-Olof Wickram’s article, this essay explores some of the possibilities and questions that the body evokes in science education research and practice. Drawing on selected theorizing in science education, environmental education and science and technology studies, the author suggests that we should strive to be more in tune with the seemingly mundane corporeal aspects of our performances and representations. This shift in attention has the potential to open up research, policy and practice agendas associated with relationships between pedagogies and embodied and disembodied knowledge and knowing. Such agendas might start by considering situated and embodied emotions in science education.

This special issue of the Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education invokes questions intended to further the discourse of citizenship in science and mathematics education, such as, How do we define citizen and democracy? Is our call for student action hypocritical? Does positioning school science through the work of Ranciere present a “straw man” argument for change? To what extent does the ghost of John Dewey animate and inform a “wild pedagogy” in science education? Challenging the view of the science and mathematics curriculum as a barrier to overcome, this article argues that possibilities for developing citizenship and critical thinking can be found and developed in existing curriculum formations and practices of school science and mathematics education.