Models of conceptual change in science learning: establishing an exhaustive inventory based on support given by articles published in major journals

IF 4.7 2区教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Studies in Science Education Pub Date : 2020-04-17 DOI:10.1080/03057267.2020.1744796

Patrice Potvin, Lucian Nenciovici, Guillaume Malenfant-Robichaud, Françoise Thibault, Ousmane Sy, Mohamed Amine Mahhou, A. Bernard, Geneviève Allaire-Duquette, J. Sarrasin, Lorie-Marlène Brault Foisy, Nancy Brouillette, Audrey-Anne St-Aubin, Patrick Charland, Steve Masson, Martin Riopel, Chin-Chung Tsai, Michel Bélanger, Pierre Chastenay

{"title":"Models of conceptual change in science learning: establishing an exhaustive inventory based on support given by articles published in major journals","authors":"Patrice Potvin, Lucian Nenciovici, Guillaume Malenfant-Robichaud, Françoise Thibault, Ousmane Sy, Mohamed Amine Mahhou, A. Bernard, Geneviève Allaire-Duquette, J. Sarrasin, Lorie-Marlène Brault Foisy, Nancy Brouillette, Audrey-Anne St-Aubin, Patrick Charland, Steve Masson, Martin Riopel, Chin-Chung Tsai, Michel Bélanger, Pierre Chastenay","doi":"10.1080/03057267.2020.1744796","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this article, we propose an analysis of the state of, and trends in, the field of conceptual change research in science education through the lens of its models. Using a quantitative approach, we reviewed all conceptual change articles (n = 245) published in five major journals in the field of science education in search of the support that their authors give to conceptual change models (CC models). We looked for support in the form of explicit or implicit mentions, favourable and unfavourable position statements and empirical confirmations and refutations. The results present a thorough description of all types of support, as well as their evolution from the early days of the field to today. We also propose a hierarchical list of the 86 CC models that we have recorded, appearing in decreasing order by the support they received from the literature. General comments are formulated in order to provide an interpretation of the field and its evolution.","PeriodicalId":49262,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Science Education","volume":"56 1","pages":"157 - 211"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/03057267.2020.1744796","citationCount":"26","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Science Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2020.1744796","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 26

Abstract

ABSTRACT In this article, we propose an analysis of the state of, and trends in, the field of conceptual change research in science education through the lens of its models. Using a quantitative approach, we reviewed all conceptual change articles (n = 245) published in five major journals in the field of science education in search of the support that their authors give to conceptual change models (CC models). We looked for support in the form of explicit or implicit mentions, favourable and unfavourable position statements and empirical confirmations and refutations. The results present a thorough description of all types of support, as well as their evolution from the early days of the field to today. We also propose a hierarchical list of the 86 CC models that we have recorded, appearing in decreasing order by the support they received from the literature. General comments are formulated in order to provide an interpretation of the field and its evolution.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

科学学习中概念变化的模型:在主要期刊上发表的文章支持下建立详尽的清单

摘要：在本文中，我们通过科学教育中概念转变研究的模型来分析其现状和趋势。采用定量方法，我们回顾了科学教育领域五大期刊上发表的所有概念变化文章（n=245），以寻求作者对概念变化模型（CC模型）的支持。我们以明示或暗示、有利和不利的立场声明以及实证证实和反驳的形式寻求支持。研究结果全面描述了所有类型的支持，以及从该领域早期到今天的演变。我们还提出了一个我们记录的86个CC模型的分层列表，根据它们从文献中获得的支持按降序排列。编写一般性意见是为了解释这一领域及其演变。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Studies in Science Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-

CiteScore

15.30

自引率

2.00%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： The central aim of Studies in Science Education is to publish review articles of the highest quality which provide analytical syntheses of research into key topics and issues in science education. In addressing this aim, the Editor and Editorial Advisory Board, are guided by a commitment to: maintaining and developing the highest standards of scholarship associated with the journal; publishing articles from as wide a range of authors as possible, in relation both to professional background and country of origin; publishing articles which serve both to consolidate and reflect upon existing fields of study and to promote new areas for research activity. Studies in Science Education will be of interest to all those involved in science education including: science education researchers, doctoral and masters students; science teachers at elementary, high school and university levels; science education policy makers; science education curriculum developers and text book writers. Articles featured in Studies in Science Education have been made available either following invitation from the Editor or through potential contributors offering pieces. Given the substantial nature of the review articles, the Editor is willing to give informal feedback on the suitability of proposals though all contributions, whether invited or not, are subject to full peer review. A limited number of books of special interest and concern to those involved in science education are normally reviewed in each volume.