Journal of Research in Science Teaching最新文献

Science education policies and standards have called for educators to teach students about the Nature of Science (NOS) and engage them in Culturally Relevant Science Teaching (CRST), which requires critical shifts away from traditional science teaching. As such, teachers are being asked to possess or take up conceptions of science that challenge the status quo. Are teachers making these shifts? Do they conceive of science in these anti-traditional ways? To explore this matter, I developed a conceptual framework around five key science topics: (1) Revision/Static; (2) Scientific Method; (3) Objective/Subjective; (4) Society and Culture; and (5) Critical Space, then surfaced traditional and anti-traditional conceptions regarding each topic drawn from science standards and prior literature. I operationalized this framework to critically analyze 20 secondary science teachers' discourse to determine whether they aligned with a traditional science ideology, an anti-traditional ideology, or somewhere in the middle (conflicting ideology). I found that for the most part participants demonstrated alignment with the anti-traditional conception when it came to the first two topics, however, when it came to the latter three topics, tensions arose and there was noticeably less consensus. As participants discussed concepts related to the latter topics, which I argue are more closely related to society, culture, and humanness, they demonstrated strikingly greater alignment with the traditional conceptions. These findings have implications for science teachers' capacity to teach science with NOS and CRST in mind. Findings also highlight key areas of consideration for teacher educators, curriculum developers, and policymakers when guiding teachers on the journey to attend to NOS and CRST.

Teacher professional development (PD) is essential to continuously improve teaching skills, to adapt to diverse student needs, and to promote equity and inclusion. Only a few studies to date have synthesized how PD programs improve teachers' content knowledge and instructional quality, as well as students' academic performance. In this meta-analysis, we aim to evaluate the impact of PD programs on science teachers and their students. We calculate a total of 514 effect sizes using Hedges' g from 66 studies published between 2010 and 2022. The bias-corrected standardized mean difference (Hedges' g) is within-subject and between-subjects design. The overall effect size is 0.772, indicating a substantial effect size on PD effectiveness (s.e. = 0.063, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.647, 0.897]). We observe considerable heterogeneity of effect sizes, moderated by PD dosage hours, duration, and active teaching. The findings indicate that relatively short PD periods—less than 48 h—and durations under 3 months may yield the most effective science PD for educators. As an alternative, slightly longer engagement exceeding 72 h, coupled with sustained support over 6 months, has proven to be the second most effective option for PD. Furthermore, an active learning approach within PD programs (ḡ = 0.794, s.e. = 0.066, 95% CI [0.656, 0.926]) has emerged as a pivotal influence on PD effectiveness. This study provides insights into education research and policy to understand PD research and to ensure how PD can be designed and implemented to improve student performance.

Even though marginalized women are earning more doctoral degrees in chemistry than ever before, the proportion of women who complete chemistry doctorates does not reflect national population trends. Previous research has explored the experiences of marginalized women seeking chemistry doctorate degrees. These studies highlight the issues that marginalized women face but do not explain why they face them or the systemic issues that underpin these experiences. This study captures the firsthand experiences of marginalized domestic and international women (Black, Hispanic/Latina, Asian, Pacific Islander, and Indigenous) pursuing graduate degrees in chemistry. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 29 participants to understand how their social identities might impact the development of their science identities. Intersectionality and the Science Identity Model informed both the interview guide and the interpretation of our data. Deductive and inductive coding, constant comparative analysis, and thematic analysis were used to examine the interplay between participants' identities and experiences. We found that recognition had a critical impact on women's science identities. Results show that participants received more positive recognition than negative from their academic community. The participants who received mostly positive recognition developed research, teaching, and altruistic science identities. Most of the positive recognition was associated with research accomplishments, which is not surprising since doctoral programs in chemistry focus primarily on research training. Conversely, the participants who received mostly negative forms of recognition developed disrupted science identities. These women described being tokenized, taken advantage of, and having their accomplishments dismissed because of their gender, race, and ethnicity. Additionally, sexist and racist comments surrounding appearance, speech, and demeanor contributed to a diminished sense of being taken seriously and, consequently, feeling less like a scientist.

Scientists and science educators have argued that learners (students, preservice teachers, and inservice teachers) should understand knowledge construction in science, in addition to figuring out disciplinary core ideas. Given this goal, some science education scholars created a construct called the “Nature of Science” (NOS), which aims to simplify the complex work of scientific knowledge production for learners. Since the 1980s, the NOS construct has shaped national and international science education reforms with the goal of creating a more scientifically literate populace. In this article, we name and question assumptions built into the NOS construct using the philosophical perspective of epistemic injustice. Using specific lenses of contributory injustice and testimonial injustice, we analyzed the 97 most-cited peer-reviewed NOS journal articles to examine which scholars are selected to create the NOS construct. We also examined how researchers using NOS position learners in relation to the construct. We found that White men are primarily named by NOS scholars to inform the construct. We also found that NOS research often positions learners from a deficit perspective compared to the construct. We conclude by discussing the potential injustices perpetuated by the NOS construct, and offer a vision for a more complete story of science in sites of learning.

Children draw on diverse sensemaking repertoires that are inclusive of their cultural and community knowledge to make sense of science in the world around them. However, preservice teachers often do not notice the science embedded in children's explanations of phenomena. Discourses that frame children, particularly those from minoritized communities, through deficit-based lenses contribute to this deficit-based noticing, perpetuating inequitable science teaching practices. This exploratory case study draws on a noticing framework that uses framing, attending, interpreting, and responding to examine how preservice teachers' anti-deficit noticing can be supported. Specifically, the study focuses on what 44 preservice teachers, enrolled in teacher preparation classes taught by the authors, notice in children's scientific explanations and how they interpret that noticing in relation to their own framing. Noticing profiles were constructed for preservice teachers using (a) data collected from written explanations of what constitutes a “good” scientific explanation and (b) written reflections of five noticing sessions during which preservice teachers viewed videos featuring elementary students providing explanations of a scientific phenomenon. Findings discuss three key patterns reflected across preservice teacher's noticing profiles: responses that reflected conventional noticing with more anti-deficit noticing in later sessions, responses that reflected potential for anti-deficit attending but were interpreted in deficit-based ways, and responses that shifted across noticing sessions in a non-linear trajectory toward more anti-deficit noticing. Implications for science teacher education explore practices that facilitate shifts toward more anti-deficit, equitable noticing with considerations for the dialogic nature between framing and noticing.

This study explored the impact of authentic out-of-school learning on students' beliefs about their science learning efficacy and career aspirations. The learning activity, designed following an authentic learning framework, was led by research scientists. We examined how students' emotions, induced in an authentic scientific activity, mediated the connection between the perceived authenticity and the self-efficacy/aspiration beliefs. Data were gathered from 177 secondary science students participating in an out-of-school activity using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Three questionnaires were applied: (1) Perceived authenticity (Post, 7 items, Likert scale); (2) Semantic differential emotion questionnaire (SDEQ) (Pre-Post, 5 items); and (3) Beliefs questionnaire in two parts: Self-efficacy and science aspirations (pre-post, 7 + 5 items, Likert scale). The collected data were integrated into quantitative models of affect with authenticity as an independent variable, the differences in the pre-post belief structures as the dependent variable, and the emotions as mediators. Multiple regression analyses were performed to develop the models by evaluating the size and significance of the relationships between the variables. The results indicated the perceived authenticity significantly predicted both self-efficacy and the career aspiration pre-post differences. However, emotions behaved as a mediating variable only for self-efficacy growth. An additional model evaluated the connection between students' emotions learning science in school and their experience of authenticity and emotions in the out-of-school activity. The study contributes to the literature by revealing underlying affective mechanisms related to out-of-school authentic science activities and suggesting theoretical and empirical justifications.

In science education, epistemic vigilance plays a key role in the development of students' critical thinking by supporting students' abilities to evaluate the expertise level of the source and to evaluate the claim itself, using rigorous scientific standards and appropriate argumentation heuristics. Based on previous studies, which suggested two aspects of epistemic vigilance—reflecting the source of information and the claim that is made—we developed the Extended Epistemic Vigilance Framework (EEVF) that includes an additional aspect of evaluating the receiver. In an empirical exploratory pilot study, we evaluated the reliability and validity of an EEVF-based category system and investigated to what extent the EEVF can be used to characterize changes in biology graduate students' epistemic vigilance after participating in a critical thinking course. Results show that the EEVF-based category system includes reliable and valid categories for identifying students' epistemic vigilance. A statistically significant increase with a small effect size was found in students' epistemic vigilance regarding the reliability of the source and the references used to support the claim following their participation in the critical thinking course. However, a statistically significant decrease with a small effect size was found regarding the awareness of the aspects of the one-sidedness of the claim, the context of the claim, and cognitive biases and socioemotional influences on the receiver. In general, these findings indicate that the EEVF offers an improved framework to analyze students' epistemic vigilance more comprehensively.

The importance of models and modeling in science education is well-recognized, yet there exists significant polysemy among these terms within the literature. This ambiguity often leads to confusion, particularly regarding whether modeling represents an expected student performance, an instructional strategy to promote such performance, or both. Moreover, the construction of models has been depicted as both the objective of modeling and a distinct phase within modeling-based instruction. Additionally, the expression of models has often been overlooked despite its significance as a crucial modeling practice. In an endeavor to shed light into these complexities associated with modeling in science education, this paper pursues a twofold aim. First, it theoretically presents and justifies the Instruction Performance Modeling (IPM) cycle, drawing on numerous previous contributions to the field, as a practical and specific instructional tool designed to clarify some problematic concepts both regarding modeling instruction and modeling practice. Second, it provides empirical evidence regarding the type of modeling performance exhibited by students involved in instruction guided by the IPM. This study applies discourse analysis to the multimodal productions of preservice teachers attending a lab-based workshop on the topic of flotation. The main findings reveal that students' modeling performance, while exhibiting certain patterns such as the Introductory pattern or the Evaluation-Revision one, predominantly manifests as a disorganized sequence of modeling practices. This result is consistent with certain precedents in the modeling literature but contrasts with the expected outcomes of well-established approaches like Generation-Evaluation-Modification. Furthermore, the study aims to highlight the rich, meaningful, and productive modeling practices occurring in instructional scenarios guided by the IPM cycle.

Recent research has highlighted the role of science education in reducing beliefs in science-related misinformation and stressed its potential positive impact on decision-making and behavior. This study implemented the Elaboration Likelihood Model to explore how individuals' abilities and motivation interact with the type of processing of scientific information in the peripheral vs. central persuasion routes. A representative sample of adults (N = 500) completed an online questionnaire during the second wave of COVID-19 (November 2020) focused on two COVID-19-related dilemmas involving social distancing recommendations. First, we examined whether relying on misinformation was associated with participants' stances and the complexity of their arguments and found that relying on misinformation was associated with the intention to reject social distancing recommendations and with the use of simple arguments. Second, we explored how motivation, operationalized as personal relevance, and abilities, operationalized as the highest level of science education, science knowledge, and strategies to identify misinformation, were associated with viewpoints and justifications. We found that personal relevance was associated with the intention to reject the recommendations but also with more complex arguments, suggesting that people did not intend to reject scientific knowledge but rather tended to contextualize it. Abilities were not associated with stance but were positively correlated with argument complexity. Finally, we examined whether motivation and abilities are associated with relying on scientific misinformation when making science-related decisions. Respondents with higher levels of science education and motivation relied less on misinformation, even if they did not necessarily intend to follow the health recommendations. This implies that motivation directs people to greater usage of the central processing route, resulting in more deliberative use of information. Science education, it appears, impacts the information evaluation decision-making process more than its outcome.

Much research investigates why women do not participate in physics, or why female attrition in physics is high; this study focuses on elite female academic physicists and how they have persisted and succeeded in their fields. As opposed to researching reasons for attrition or not participating, this study focuses on six elite female academic physicists' strategies for flourishing in a male-dominated field. Through semi-structured life-history interviews, the participants' narratives revealed their gendered identities to be hybrid: they all identified as female, but performed a particular kind of masculinity by actively embodying four of the same characteristics that normally deter females from participating in physics. This perspective is used to discover how these women, pioneers in their subfields, actively negotiated hostile environments and became successful. These findings give insight into the identities female physicists construct so that they can follow their passion; understanding why they made these choices provides an opportunity to make change in physics departments as well as the messages the science education community sends to young physicists.