The main goal of this article is to introduce physics education research (PER) to researchers in other fields. Topics include discussion of differences between science education research (SER) and physics education research (PER), physics educators, research design and methodology in physics education research and current research traditions and trends (e.g. current research ideas) within PER.

Federal Grants & ContractsVolume 46, Issue 16 p. 1-1 Grants alerts National Center for Special Education Research Special Education Research (ED) First published: 19 July 2022 https://doi.org/10.1002/fgc.32477Read the full textAboutPDF 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. Volume46, Issue1621 July 2022Pages 1-1 RelatedInformation

(1977). Comparative Education Research and Development Education. Comparative Education: Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 87-93.

The grounded theory method provides a systematic way to generate theoretical constructs or concepts that illuminate psychosocial processes common to individual who have a similar experience of the phenomenon under investigation. There has been an increase in the number of published research reports that use the grounded theory method. However, there has been less medical education research, which is based on the grounded theory tradition. The purpose of this paper is to introduce basic tenants of qualitative research paradigm with specific reference to ground theory. The paper aims to encourage readers to think how they might possibly use the grounded theory method in medical education research and to apply such a method to their own areas of interest. The important features of a grounded theory as well as its implications for medical education research are explored. Data collection and analysis are also discussed. It seems to be reasonable to incorporate knowledge of this kind in medical education research.

The Astronomy Education Research Charter is a statement from members of the astronomy education research community. It was originally discussed at the 2007 Astronomy Education Research Symposium. A report of the symposium and a call for public participation in its creation was published in this journal (Price et al. 2008, Astronomy Education Review, 6, 130). Participants of the symposium and members of the general public edited this document via an anonymous wiki from January, 2008 to September, 2008. This published version of the document is authored by all contributors to the wiki, who are represented by the coordinator, Aaron Price, and the coordinating organizations: The American Association of Variable Star Observers and the Wright Center for Science Education at Tufts University. We consider this an ongoing process, and this is just the first version of this document, which is owned by the community. Further revisions are encouraged via the wiki at (uri: http://aavso.org/astroed/index.php/MaiṉPage). The community is welcome to build on this version through other channels as well. In those cases, the wiki may be a useful resource to publicize further work on the charter.

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.

This essay will explore some global trends in mathematics education research, what these trends mean for mathematics education, and how they will shape mathematics education in the years to come. In particular, this essay will focus on the latest trends in mathematics education research, such as Digital technology, innovative teaching methods and approaches, the impact of mathematics education on student achievement, Inquiry-based learning, Games and Gamification, and Equity, diversity, and inclusion.

Cognitive science has the potential for offering explanatory models for many of the findings of empirical research in science education. In this paper, I use recent editions of international journals of science education to produce a categorisation of types of science education research, and what possible contributions each might make to cognitive science or the potential of results from cognitive science for enriching the science education research accounts. In a short, final section, the relationship of our own cognitive work to cognitive science is explored.

ABSTRACTThe themes in higher education research in different countries vary to some extent. This research takes 15 SSCI journals of higher education as examples. A scientometric method was used to classify the themes in higher education research, and a vector space model was employed to calculate the similarities in different countries active in the research hot spots in the cognate area. The results show that the top five ranked keywords of higher education research are assessment, university, sustainability, feedback, and diversity. Higher education research was classified into 20 areas, and different countries were focused on different areas. The number of publications was mainly led by the USA, the UK, and Australia. The most similar countries in the higher education research field were Australia and the UK. European countries had a higher similarity in higher education research with each other, but the similarity between Asian countries was very low. The similarity between different countries exhibited different characteristics, which has important significance for the development of higher education research.

This article reviews the history of environmental education research (EER) in Japan, casting a critical view on its fragmented nature, and proposes a future agenda for its development. Pollution (kogai) education research (KER) and nature conservation education research were initiated and developed by people from different backgrounds in the 1960s and 70s, which was followed by “EE” research in the 1970s. The establishment of the Japanese Society of Environmental Education (JSOEE) in 1990 could have linked them up under the banner of EE, yet KE was rather neglected within the JSOEE in the 1990s and 2000s, unlike nature conservation education. This is possibly because many key KE researchers did not join nor become active members of JSOEE, and the then Environmental Agency downplayed KE in the formulation of its EE policy. This KER-EER disconnect may account for the weak critical and social scientific perspectives in JSOEE and a “technocratic rationality” prevailing among its members who tend to regard EE as an instrument to achieve policy objectives. Existing studies also show other disconnects embedded in JSOEE—between research in Japan and abroad and between research in the present and the past, the former hardly drawing on the latter in each case. These disconnects may be due to the emphasis on a street-level pragmatism and a lack of theoretical discussion within JSOEE. After pointing out several features of Japanese EER in the 2010s, this article concludes by suggesting several agendas to address the patchwork condition and existing disconnects for the future of EER in Japan.