Developing a Research Agenda in Science Education

The Science Summit reinforced a question upon which many of us in science education are focused: How can we, the science education community of researchers, practitioners, and consumers, lead policy? We include a brief review of the No Child Left Behind Act and its implications for teachers, and elaborate about one ongoing and growing effort to answer the concerns about the paucity of research expressed at the Summit. We describe a unique and growing collaboration across professional science education and science organizations and societies that focuses on the development of a research agenda. The term ‘consilience’ refers to the “jumping together of knowledge” that leads to scientific advancements, progressive, creative, fluid scientific research and intellectual capacity to move a research community toward an enlightened research agenda. A coherent research agenda enables us to specify what we know, what we need to know, and how research can be employed for creating and implementing policy. The use of a dynamic organizer (such as Pasteur’s Quadrant) for a research matrix of topics provides a possible structure for organizing and cataloging research questions, designs, findings from past studies, needed areas for research, and policy implications. Through this unique collaboration, the science education community can better focus on needs and priorities and ensure that teachers, policy makers, scientists, and researchers in education at local through national levels have an important stake in research priorities and actions.     

Making connections: Using skill theory to recognize how students build and rebuild understanding

In this companion to Marc Schwartz and Kurt Fischer's article, Patricia King and JoNes VanHecke describe how student affairs educators can help students become sophisticated thinkers.     

Score Gains, Attitudes, and Behavior Changes Due to Answer-Changing Instruction

Six undergraduate and three graduate classes were given multiple-choice tests with subsequent evaluation of answer changes. The 300 students were tested twice, once before and once after instruction on answer changing. After each test, students were asked to complete two forms. The forms evaluated attitude toward answer changing, reasons for changing, and confidence in final answers. Students showed a significant increase in favorability toward answer changing after instruction. No significant change was found in number of answers changed. Psychology students were found to change significantly more items than were business students. Mean gain score did not change significantly after instruction. It was concluded that although instruction does lead to a change in attitude in answer changing, the number of changes and overall gain due to answer changing do not change. It was also determined that students continue to make significant gains even when their confidence in the final answer is less than 50 on a 100-point scale.