Science education research and cognitive science

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.

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

Children's Mathematics Learning: The Struggle to Link Form and Understanding

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.

The demand for scientifically-based educational research has fostered a new methodological orthodoxy exemplified by documents such as the National Research Council's Scientific Research in Education and Advancing Scientific Research in Education and American Educational Research Association's Standards for Reporting on Empirical Social Science Research in AERA Journals. This article criticizes the new orthodoxy as being a throwback to positivist reductionism and the “two dogmas” of educational research: the quantitative/ qualitative incompatibility thesis and fact/value dichotomy. It then criticizes the new orthodoxy for fostering a “third dogma” of educational research cut from the same cloth as the first two: the empirical science/humanities dualism. The article advances the view that no fundamental epistemological dividing line can be drawn between the empirical sciences and the humanities and that, accordingly, empirical research in education should not be cordoned off from the humanities, particularly their focus on values. It concludes with several observations about the problems and prospects for interdisciplinary research in education across the empirical science/humanities divide.

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.

Science EducationVolume 70, Issue 3 p. 294-346 SummaryFree Access A summary of research in science education — 1984 First published: June 1986 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730700304AboutPDF 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 Volume70, Issue3June 1986Pages 294-346 RelatedInformation

The inclusion of science inquiry in the K-12 school curriculum has been one of the goals of science education for a long time. In the early 1900s, Armstrong, Dewey, and others advocated the teaching of science inquiry. In the late 1980s and 1990s, science inquiry was emphasized again as a key component in curriculum reform efforts, such as the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council 1996) and Science for All Americans (AAAS 1990). In fact, being able to understand and perform scientific inquiry was cited as one of the four critical targets of science instruction. Contemporary literature and research in science education is dominated by the concepts of inquiry and nature of science (NOS), which are two foci of current reform efforts in science education. Research indicates a ‘‘pattern for general support for inquiry-based teaching’’ (Bransford et al. 2000; NRC 1996, p. 126; NRC 2000). However, since inquiry and NOS are complex and abstract ideas, there has been a great confusion not only about what is meant by teaching science as inquiry and the specific attributes of inquiry and NOS but also about how to implement scientific inquiry to K-12 and college science classrooms. This book examines and synthesizes research on a wide variety of contemporary theoretical and practical trends and issues about including inquiry and NOS in science teaching, science teacher education, and research in science education. It presents the first attempt to juxtapose inquiry and nature of science as student outcomes. Although closely related these two terms have different connotations within the science education community. The book presents various points of view from several prominent researchers in science education and helps to clarify these two constructs. An introductory chapter by the editors highlights the major issues involved, the organization and the raison d’etre of the book. The first chapter functions as a theoretical framework for the remaining chapters. In this chapter, Rodger Bybee uses the National Science Education Standards to challenge some of the modern views of inquiry. Highlighting inquiry as both a content goal and a teaching method he defines and clarifies

This paper presents findings from a content analysis of 650 empirical chemistry education research papers published in two top-tiered chemistry education journals Chemistry Education Research and Practice and Journal of Chemical Education, and four top-tiered science education journals International Journal of Science Education, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Research in Science Teaching and Science Education from 2004–2013. We found that empirical chemistry education research (CER) papers accounted for 7.7 percent of the publications in the four science education journals. The most highly published area of research was in conceptions and conceptual change and most studies adopted mixed methods. The majority of the studies were conducted in higher education contexts and in the United States. Researchers who publish prolifically in the field included Vicente Talanquer, Derek Cheung, Michael Sanger, Keith Taber, Melanie Cooper and Marcy Towns. Current research trends and gaps are illuminated and possible future work in CER is discussed in the paper.

Scientists are becoming increasingly aware of the need to approach their teaching with the same expectations for evidence that they use in their science. They are coming to recognize that, just as in science research, research on undergraduate science education has a literature as well as standards for practice. I (M.L.L.) am a recent convert to this way of thinking. I taught for 30 years using mostly a lecture style and believed myself quite revolutionary when I used projected images to make cell biological points in class. I now teach using the results of discipline-based education research (DBER) and do my best to use instructional strategies that are demonstrated to improve student learning.

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.

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

This report is the fourth of four that stem from a study of the Impact of Approved Induction