Preface

Although some have predicted the end of science (Horgan, 1996), the scientific enterprise thrives and scientists generate new knowledge at an incredible rate. (A recent report from the US National Science Foundation stated that over 92,000 scientific articles were published in 2001 in comparison with about 70,000 in 1991 (Hill, 2004).) Essential to the vibrancy of science, scientists continue to ask questions of the world. In the July 1, 2005 issue of the journal Science, the editor compiled responses from senior scientists and published the 125 questions that science “should have a good shot at answering” (Kennedy & Norman, 2005, p. 75) in the next 25 years, many from relatively young sciences such as neuroscience, genomics, biomedical science, geophysics, astrophysics, and bioengineering. According to Siegfried (2005), in that same journal issue:

When science runs out of questions, it would seem, science will come to an end. But there's no real danger of that. The highway from ignorance to knowledge runs both ways: As knowledge accumulates, diminishing the ignorance of the past, new questions arise, expanding the areas of ignorance to explore. (p. 77).

For many years, science education researchers prided themselves on following research approaches and paradigms that approximated those of science. Thus, it is interesting to consider the similarities between science and science education. How does science education as a discipline compare? Our field has a much shorter history than that of the natural sciences. Our research has appeared in science education journals and books for fewer than 100 years. Yet we have generated a substantial body of knowledge during this time, knowledge from which new questions have emerged. Like the sciences, our questions are partly shaped by the society in which we live and partly by the research community in which we work. Research in science is guided by and builds upon prior research. However, in the science education community, researchers are often opportunistic, studying what is convenient to them rather than building on previous investigations. We believe that a handbook of research in a discipline such as science education provides a foundation upon which future research can be built.

The purpose of this volume is twofold. First, the authors look backward in time in an attempt to capture where science education has been and what we currently know. Secondly, the authors project into the future, positing research agendas for various subfields in the discipline. When we invited authors to take part in the project, we asked that they tackle these two purposes:

We are asking authors to write an “integrative review” of the research in each topic area. Authors will pull together the existing research on the topic and work to understand the historical trends and patterns in that body of scholarship. Authors will describe how the issue is conceptualized within the literature, how methods and theories have shaped the outcomes of the research, and where the strengths, weaknesses, and gaps are in the literature. Reviews will end with implications for practice and future research derived from the review. (S. Abell & N. Lederman, personal communication, October 15, 2002)

This book is intended as a comprehensive research handbook for the field of science education. Two research handbooks in the field were produced in the previous decade. The first, edited by Gabel (1994), the Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning, was published in cooperation with the National Science Teachers Association. It is now over 10 years old and no longer represents the scope of research in the field. The second, edited by Fraser and Tobin (1998), the International Handbook of Science Education, although international in its collection of authors, did not present a comprehensive review of the research in science education. Rather it was an in-depth sampling of the work of various researchers, demonstrating a slice in time of research in the field. Both of these volumes responded to the inadequacy of the single review chapters for science education contained in general education research handbooks such as those produced by the American Educational Research Association. The work represented in this volume is international and comprehensive in scope. It provides both veteran and emerging science education researchers with a coherent synthesis of the empirical and theoretical research concerning teaching and learning in science, and paves the way for future research.

OVERVIEW OF THE BOOK

One of our first steps as editors was to map out our construction of the structure of the discipline of science education. We first created five organizing categories in which to place the research in the field: Science Learning; Culture, Gender, and Society and Science Learning; Science Teaching; Curriculum and Assessment; and Science Teacher Education. We thought that this organization would capture most, if not all, of the published science education research (although we were aware that no organizational scheme would achieve consensus among our colleagues). These organizers became the five major sections in this Handbook.

The more difficult step was deciding what chapters should appear within each section. The decisions we made were unique, based on our experiences as science educators and researchers. Our decisions certainly would not match the organization other researchers would impose on the field. Current trends and length restrictions led us to make strategic decisions on chapters to include or not to include. For example, given the recent importance of the literature on language and science, we included two chapters on language and science learning. However, as we envisioned, these chapters serve different purposes. The first, by William Carlsen, appears in the first section of the book, Science Learning. It is meant to be a theoretical overview of language and learning and how such theory has informed science education research. The second chapter on language and science education research appears in the third section of the book, Science Teaching. That chapter, by Gregory Kelly (once Carlsen's doctoral student), reviews classroom-based research on discourse in science education. We also made strategic decisions on chapters not to include. For example, although research on college science teaching has increased in the past decade (demonstrated in part by a dedicated strand at the annual NARST meeting), we chose to include this research by science discipline instead of by grade level, along with subject-specific studies at middle and high school levels, in the Science Teaching section of the Handbook. However, we decided that the research on elementary science teaching was less science discipline-specific and more age-related, and therefore deserved its own chapter.

The organization of this Handbook highlights other recent trends in the field. For example, the second section of the book, Culture, Gender, and Society, acknowledges the contributions of research focused on context to understanding science learners. The chapters in this section demonstrate the importance of learners’ gender, culture, and special needs, as well as the larger societal context (urban, rural, postcolonial), in learning science. In the final section of the book, Science Teacher Education, we have presented a comprehensive synthesis of the research in the area of science teacher education for the first time. Twenty years ago, few studies in science education focused on science teacher learning. Currently such research comprises the largest submission to the NARST annual meeting, necessitating the development of two separate dedicated strands. The chapters in this section are thus a unique contribution to the field.

As editors, we also influenced the direction of the book in other ways. Once we had a structure for the Handbook in place, we brainstormed authors for the various chapters. First and foremost, we wanted authors who were leading experts in their research area, and who had published a significant quality and/or quantity of research. As veteran science education researchers with a total of 40+ years in the field, and as past presidents of NARST, our collective expertise was a good place to begin the brainstorming. However, we recognized that our expertise was limited in certain areas of the field and was somewhat North American centric. Thus we also consulted other resources during the author selection process, including the NARST annual meeting programs of recent years, other conference proceedings, and the ERIC database. In addition to selecting high profile researchers, we tried to ensure that our selection represented the international and gender diversity that exists in our research community. We believe that the final list of authors indeed meets these selection criteria.

An additional task we faced as editors was to engage thoughtful reviewers in providing feedback to authors on the first drafts of chapter manuscripts. The peer review process is critical to maintaining quality in our work. The reviewers we selected, along with the editors, provided insight and made recommendations that improved the final chapters in many ways. Some authors also involved their own colleagues in the review processes. The reviewers are acknowledged in the chapters they reviewed. Through section and chapter organization, author selection, and review work, we crafted this Handbook. It represents our current construction of the structure of the discipline of science education.

THEMATIC ELEMENTS

We have had the honor of interacting with many authors and reviewers to shape the contents of this book. We have had the privilege of reading all of the chapters and interpreting various themes that emerged from our reading. In this section we highlight three such themes.

One of the striking features of the field of science education as represented in the chapters in this Handbook is that it is influenced by the prevailing learning theory of the day. Few would argue that perspectives on learning have changed drastically over the past 100 years. Even the most superficial analysis indicates at least five “general families” of learning theory held dominance in educational matters over the past century—mental discipline, natural unfoldment, apperception, behaviorism, and cognitive science. These differing perspectives have influenced how science education researchers view learning, teaching, and the assessment of both.

A second theme of the research reviewed in this Handbook is that the predominance of various research methodologies change over time. Some of this fluctuation corresponds directly with changing views of learning. Early research on teaching and learning focused on the identification and exercise of various mental faculties as a direct result of the dominance of mental discipline theory. In the 1970s, process-product research methodologies clearly reflected the dominance of behavioristic learning theories. The emergence of qualitative methodologies mirrored the replacement of behaviorism with cognitive theories of learning.

A final theme that emerges from the Handbook chapters is that the teaching and learning of science is discipline-specific. What is considered effective instruction in a biology class is not the same as effective instruction in another class, science or otherwise. Teachers do not teach and learners do not learn biology in the same ways as they do physics or social science or humanities. This theme appears in the sections on science learners and learning, in the discipline-specific chapters on science teaching, and in the section on science teacher education. In that section, authors examine the notion of pedagogical content knowledge as a framework for science teacher education research. Lee Shulman, who invented this idea (1986), began his career as a science educator. He cautioned us not to allow the disappearance of subject matter from educational research. The existence of this Handbook is a testimony to the value of science subject matter in our research.

THE FUTURE OF SCIENCE EDUCATION

Much like the authors in the July, 2005 issue of Science demonstrate that science is alive and well, the chapters in this Handbook illustrate the vitality of science education as a discipline. We have learned much about science learners and learning, and science teachers and teaching, over the past 80 or so years of research. According to the chapter authors, many questions remain open for investigation. Surely many other questions we have not yet thought to ask.

As we continue to ask and investigate questions in science education, we believe it is crucial to keep a few guidelines in mind.

1. The ultimate purpose of science education research is the improvement of science teaching and learning throughout the world. We must take care that the proximate causes of our research (e.g., achieving publications that count for tenure, writing conference papers so our universities will fund our travel, preparing new researchers, getting grant dollars) do not derail us from achieving our ultimate purpose. Thus we call for rigor in design, data collection, interpretation, and write up.
2. To achieve the ultimate purpose of improving science teaching and learning, our research must be grounded in the real world of students and teachers and school systems and society. Ours is an applied field, and we must ensure that our research makes sense in the real world. Our research must address, and attempt to answer, the questions and concerns of teachers. To have educational warrant, our research must answer questions of educational importance.
3. To achieve the ultimate purpose of improving science teaching and learning, we as researchers need to be open to new theoretical frameworks, research methodologies, and strategies, even as we embrace existing tried and true methods. We are long past the paradigm wars that dominated education research in the 1980s. Mixed methods research (Chatterji, 2004; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004) is a new paradigm ripe for application to science education settings. Longitudinal studies that employ mixed methods will be essential to understanding student and teacher learning over time. In addition, theoretical frameworks that embrace postmodern thinking will help us see the world in new ways.
4. Translating our research for teachers is an essential component of our work. If we write only for other researchers, we will never achieve this ultimate goal. Teachers and researchers often describe the gap between research and practice. It is our responsibility to translate our research so that practitioners and policy makers can ultimately decide whether what has been offered is of practical value. This Handbook is written for researchers. We leave it to others to undertake the important work of interpreting and transforming its contents for other stakeholders.

These guidelines, along with the research agendas suggested by chapter authors, can help our field advance. Although we are not quite ready to state the 125 questions that the science education community has a shot at answering in the upcoming 25 years, the guidelines and research agendas can help science education researchers fulfill the mission, reflected in the NARST slogan, to improve science teaching (and learning) through research. If we keep our eyes on this goal, then we will continue to raise new research questions that will diminish our current ignorance while expanding the areas of ignorance yet to be explored.

Sandra K. Abell
University of Missouri, Columbia

Norman G. Lederman
Illinois Institute of Technology

REFERENCES

Chatterji, M. (2004). Evidence on “What Works“: An argument for extended-term mixed-method (ETMM) evaluation designs. Educational Researcher, 33(9), 3–13.

Gabel, D. L. (Ed.). (1994). Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. New York: Macmillan.

Fraser, B. J., & Tobin, K. G. (Eds.). (1998). International handbook of science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Hill, D. L. (2004). Latin America shows rapid rise in S&E articles (NSF 04-336). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences.

Horgan, J. (1996). The end of science: Facing the limits of knowledge in the twilight of the scientific age. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.

Kennedy, D., & Norman, C. (2005). What don't we know? (Special Section). Science, 309 (5731), 75.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

Siegfried, T. (2005). In praise of hard questions. (Special Section). Science, 309 (5731), 76–77.

The National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) endorses the Handbook of Research on Science Education as an important and valuable synthesis of the current knowledge in the field of science education by leading individuals in the field.