Journal of Research in Science Teaching最新文献

Collaborative argumentation has been recognized as a powerful means to facilitate conceptual change of scientific concepts for which students have robust misconceptions. However, eliciting and maintaining collaborative argumentation that yields such productive outcomes is known to be difficult. Specifically, social-motivational antecedents have not yet been explored. Over 13 weeks, we conducted a controlled experiment to examine the role of achievement goals in productive collaborative argumentation in the context of scientific concept learning while fully considering the effects on conceptual change, argumentative discourse, and perceptions of conflicts. Three types of achievement goals were identified among 94 undergraduates: mastery goal-dominant (a focus on developing competence and task mastery), two goals-balanced (pursuing mastery and performance goals simultaneously) and performance goal-dominant (a focus on demonstrating competence relative to others). Eighteen homogeneous groups participated in four collaborative argumentation activities concerning four scientific topics of varying controversy levels. The results showed that for highly controversial topics, mastery goal-dominant students and two goals-balanced students exhibited greater conceptual change than performance goal-dominant students over a longer period. Dialogue protocol analysis further revealed a combined pattern of argumentative discourse (i.e., both deliberative argumentation and co-consensual construction frequently occurred, while disputative argumentation rarely occurred) among mastery goal-dominant students and two goals-balanced students concerning highly controversial topics. Responses to stimulated recall interviews also indicated that perceptions of conflicts among the three types of students differed in terms of five aspects: their first impression of disagreements, their feelings in response to peer disagreement, their reasons for changing or maintaining to their original ideas, the meaning of group consensus, and the degrees to which they accepted group consensus. This study sheds light on the role of social-motivational antecedents, deepening our understanding of whether different achievement goals might orient students to different perceptions of conflicts, triggering different argumentative discourse, producing different conceptual change.

A crucial hurdle to addressing climate change is science denial. While research suggests that science denial is related to judgments individuals make about the credibility of information sources, less is known about how source credibility and characteristics of the individual interact to affect science denial. In the present study, we examined the extent to which individuals' belief in climate change claims and trust in the sources of these claims were influenced by the interaction between the political leaning of information sources (i.e., conservative media vs. liberal media vs. scientific institutions), individuals' political ideologies, and individuals' epistemic beliefs (beliefs about the nature of knowledge and knowing). We found that both individuals' belief in climate change information and trust in sources were predicted by interactions between these variables. For example, participants who believed that facts are not politically constructed were more likely to believe in climate information and trust scientific sources, regardless of the participant's partisanship. These findings suggest that epistemic profiles associated with deference to scientific sources might protect against climate change denial. Therefore, cultivating such epistemic beliefs and the skills to critically evaluate sources could be instrumental to combating climate change denial.

Articulating the rules, roles, and values that are expected of undergraduate researchers is important as we strive to create a more accessible path into the scientific community. Rules refer to skills required of scientists, roles refer to behaviors consistent with the expectations of a scientist, and values refer to beliefs of the scientific community. Doctoral student mentors have great potential to serve as agents of influence for undergraduate researchers as undergraduates engage in the process of learning to be a scientist through legitimate peripheral participation. As such, we argue that doctoral students are partially responsible for identifying and promoting the rules, roles, and values that undergraduate researchers develop in scientific research. However, few studies have examined what rules, roles, and values are appreciated, or perceived as desirable, by doctoral students and thus expected of undergraduate research mentees. To address this gap, we surveyed 835 life sciences doctoral students who had mentored or would eventually mentor undergraduate researchers. We assessed what qualities and beliefs they appreciate in undergraduate researchers and what advice they would give to undergraduates to maximize their experiences in research. We analyzed their open-ended responses using inductive coding and identified specific rules (e.g., effectively communicate), roles (e.g., demonstrate a strong work ethic), and values (e.g., be driven by intrinsic passion) that doctoral students wrote about. We used logistic regression to determine whether demographics predicted differences among doctoral student responses. We found that gender, race/ethnicity, and college generation status predicted what rules, roles, and values doctoral students appreciated and advised undergraduates to adopt. This research illuminates what rules, roles, and values undergraduate researchers are expected to uphold and identifies relationships between mentor identities and the advice they pass on to students.

National governments are concerned about the disconnection of young people from science, which hampers the development of a scientifically literate society promoting sustainable development, wellbeing, equity, and a green economy. Introduced in 2015 alongside Agenda 2030, the “open schooling” approach aims at enhancing students' science connections through real-life problem solving with families and scientists, necessitating solid evidence for scalability and sustainability. This study conceptualizes “science connection,” a term yet underexplored, as the integration of science's meaning and purpose into personal, social, and global actions informed by socioscientific thinking. It details a novel 32-item self-report questionnaire developed and validated from insights of 85 teachers into “science connection”-enhanced learning. A new consensual qualitative analysis method with visual and textual snapshots enabled developing quantitative measures from the qualitative findings with rigor. The multilanguage instrument provided just-in-time actionable data, enhancing the immediacy and applicability of the feedback to 2082 underserved students aged 11–18 across five countries participating in open schooling activities using the CARE-KNOW-DO model. This innovative feature supports open science and responsible open research, offering real-time insights and fostering immediate educational impact. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses revealed five components of science connection: Confidence and aspiration in science; Fun participatory science with teachers, family, and experts; Active learning approaches; Involvement in-and-outside school science activities; and Valuing science's role to life-and-society. Many students felt connected to science— Brazil: 80%, Spain: 79%, Romania: 73%, Greece: 70%, UK: 57%— with boys: 75%, girls: 73%, nonbinary students: 56%. These differences need in-depth research. Results suggest that science connections decline from the primary to secondary education, but the CARE-KNOW-DO model may reengage older students. A robust science connection enhances scientific literacy and builds science capital. This instrument aids policymakers, educators, and learners in identifying factors that facilitate or impede students' engagement with science for sustainable development efforts.

The purpose of this article is to introduce a methodology for analyzing the complex configurations emerging in students' speech and drawing activities, having consequences for how and what students learn and make meaning of in science. Accordingly, we launch a methodology to unfold the multidimensional communication as to deepen the analysis of the science epistemic discourse. We present an empirical account of students' explorations through different signs to demonstrate the construction of the methodology step-by-step. This methodology, a “seven-concept-assemblage,” is rooted in Dewey's pragmatism and Deleuze's experimentalism broadening teachers' and researchers' possibility to target students' science explorations and meaning-making crosscutting different domains. The methodology diminishes the risk of interpretation when grasping unspoken messages and meanings. Empirical data were collected in an elementary school exemplifying the methodology and consist of audio recordings, photographs, fieldnotes, and students' drawings. The result reveals that the methodology in use exposed what and how students explored and learned cognitively and aesthetically. Imagination fertilized the process throughout. Learning then is suggested as a transductive meaning-making process shaped through oral and pictorial relations—always from a purpose.

Misinformation has been extensively studied as both maliciously intended propaganda and accidentally experienced incorrect assumptions. We contend that “conceptual contamination” is the process by which the learning of incorrect information interferes, pollutes, or otherwise disrupts the learning of correct information. This is similar to a medical model of disease transmission wherein misinformation travels from person to person via multiple methods. And just as we can inoculate the public against diseases like smallpox or measles, we suggest this same approach (providing refutations to misconceptions that individuals may not have read yet) can inoculate the public from misconceptions. We sought to examine whether we could inoculate against misconceptions, and if so, would a refutation text outperform a more traditional expository text. We also sought to examine the role of emotions and attitudes. We randomly assigned 152 undergraduate students to one of four experimental conditions comparing both text type (refutation vs. expository) and text order (misconception first or second) on their ability to overcome misconceptions. Our findings indicate that reading refutation texts led to significantly fewer misconceptions and reduced negative emotions. We also illustrate that the prevailing approach to countering misinformation—providing expository support after exposure to misinformation—performed the worst overall. Our findings suggest that refutation texts continue to provide significant reductions in misconceptions, and that overall misconceptions can be reduced regardless of text type, if the correct information can precede misinformation.

For students who face marginalization in a discipline, counterspaces are safe spaces of refuge that allow them to express their multiple identities and foster their sense of belonging. While prior qualitative work on counterspaces has highlighted how and why these spaces support marginalized students, there is little quantitative work that provides systemic evidence on broad counterspace initiatives formed to support students' disciplinary sense of belonging. In physics, a discipline that is deeply androcentric, two potential counterspaces have emerged for undergraduate women: the Conferences for Undergraduate Women in Physics (CUWiP) and Women in Physics Groups (WiPG). Drawing on survey data collected from undergraduate women in physics programs across the country who were registering for the 2018 CUWiP (N = 1388), we used structural equation modeling to test the effect of earlier participation in CUWiP and WiPG on students' current sense of belonging and interest in physics. We also tested the mediating effect of believing that there are serious gender issues in physics since these spaces have been found to increase students' consciousness of gender bias. The results revealed a significant positive direct effect of CUWiP and WiPG on sense of belonging. A more complex story emerged for indirect effects where believing in serious gender issues can negatively affect sense of belonging if interest in physics is not positively reinforced. Overall, the findings clearly provide quantitative evidence that broad diversity conference and affinity group initiatives, such as CUWiP and WiPG, can act as counterspaces that bolster belonging for women in disciplines like physics where they are marginalized. However, activities in these spaces should also continue to foster students' unique disciplinary interests.

One reason for the widespread use of the energy concept across the sciences is that energy analysis can be used to interpret the behavior of systems even if one does not know the particular mechanisms that underlie the observed behavior. By providing an approach to interpreting unfamiliar phenomena, energy provides a lens on phenomena that can set the stage for deeper learning about how and why phenomena occur. However, not all energy ideas are equally productive in setting the stage for new learning. In particular, researchers have debated the value of teaching students to interpret phenomena in terms of energy forms and transformations. In this study, we investigated how two different approaches to middle school energy instruction—one emphasizing energy transformations between forms and one emphasizing energy transfers between systems—prepared students to use their existing energy knowledge to engage in new learning about a novel energy-related phenomenon. To do this, we designed a new assessment instrument to elicit student initial ideas about the phenomenon and to compare how effectively students from each approach learned from authentic learning resources. Our results indicate that students who learned to interpret phenomenon in terms of energy transfers between systems learned more effectively from available learning resources than did students who learned to interpret phenomena in terms of energy forms and transformations. This study informs the design of introductory energy instruction and approaches for assessing how students existing knowledge guides new learning about phenomena.

This study examines the often-heard assumption in science teaching that some pedagogies in science classrooms can serve a dual function—improve the student-perceived teacher quality and improve students' affinity to STEM professions. We asked 7507 freshmen from 40 colleges in the United States, selected in a stratified random procedure, to retrospectively report their experiences of a list of 32 pedagogies during high school biology, chemistry, and physics classes. Our survey also asked students to rate each teachers' quality and to report their Science, Technology, Engineering, or Mathematics career interests at the beginning and end of high school. We found that teachers' chosen pedagogies, on the whole, had a stronger impact on how students rated them than on students' career interests. Interestingly, we also found considerable differences between the disciplines.