Science education research internationally: Conceptions, research methods, domains of research

Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 3-15

  Duit, Reinders ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KIEL   (Germany)

Author keywords

International perspectives; Research conceptions; Research domains; Research methods; Science education

Indexed keywords

EID: 34247625118     PISSN: 13058215     EISSN: 13058223     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.12973/ejmste/75369     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers' conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665-702.
2. Anderson, R. D., & Helms, J. V. (2001). The ideal standards and reality of school: Needed research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 3-16.
3. Abell, S.K. & Lederman, N.G. (2007a). Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum (in print).
4. Abell, S.K., & Lederman, N.G. (2007b). Chapter 1. Introduction. In S.K. Abell & N.G. Lederman, Eds., Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum (in print).
5. Baumert, J., Artelt, C., Klieme, E., Neubrand, M., Prenzel, M., Schiefele, U. et al., Eds. (2002). PISA 2000: Die Länder der Bundesrepublik Deutschland im Vergleich [PISA 2000: Comparing the German federal states (pp. 11-38). Opladen, Germany: Leske & Budrich.
6. Beaton, A. E., Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Gonzalez, E. J., Smith, T. A. & Kelly, D. A. (1996). Science achievement in the Middle School Years. IEA's Third International Mathematics and Science Study. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
7. Beeth, M., Duit, R., Prenzel, C., Ostermeier, R., Tytler, R., & Wickman, P.O. (2003). Quality development projects in science education. In D. Psillos, P. Kariotoglou, V. Tselfes, E. Hatzikraniotis, G. Fassoulopoulos, & M. Kallery, Eds., Science Education research in the knowledge based society (pp. 447-457). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
8. Bliss, J. (1995). Piaget and after: The case of learning science. Studies in Science Education, 25, 139-172.
9. Bybee, R.W. (1997). Towards an understanding of scientific literacy. In W. Gräber & K. Bolte, Eds., Scientific literacy (pp. 37-68). Kiel, Germany: IPN - Leibniz-Institute for Science Education.
10. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in education research. Educational Researcher, 32, 1, 9-13.
11. Dahncke, H. Duit, R., Gilbert, J., Östman, L., Psillos, D., & Pushkin, D. (2001). Science education versus science in the academy: Questions-discussions-perspectives. In H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Gräber, M. Komorek, A. Kross & P. Reiska, Eds., Research in science education - Past, present, and future (pp. 43-48). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
12. Driver, R., & Erickson, G. L. (1983). Theories-in-action: Some theoretical and empirical issues in the study of students' conceptual frameworks in science. Studies in Science Education, 10, 37-60.
13. Driver, R., & Easley, J. A. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61-84.
14. Duit, R. (2006). Bibliograpby STCSE - Teachers' and Students' Conceptions and Science Educadon. Kiel, Germany: IPN - Leibniz Institute for Science Education (http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/ stcse/stcse.html).
15. Duit, R. & Tibergien, A. (2005, August). Proposal for a series: ESERA - Science Education Research Letters. Occasional Paper. Presented at the Biannual Meeting of ESERA (European Science Education Research Association), Barcelona.
16. Duit, R., Gropengießer, H., & Kattmann, U. (2005). Towards science education research that is relevant for improving practice: The model of educational reconstruction. In H.E. Fischer, Ed., Developing standards in research on science education (pp. 1-9). London: Taylor & Francis.
17. Duit, R., Fischer, H., Labudde, P., Brückmann, M., Gerber, B., Kauertz, A., Knierim, B. & Tesch. M. (2005). Potential of video studies in research on teaching and learning science. In R. Pintó & D. Couso, Eds., Proceedings of the Fifth International ESERA Conference on Contributions of Research to Enhancing Students' Interests in Learning Science (pp. 829-842). Barcelona, Spain: UAB.
18. Duit, R., Komorek, M., & Müller, C. T. (2004). Fachdidaktisches Denken [Subject related educational thinking]. Occasional paper. Kiel, Germany: IPN - Leibniz-Institute for Science Education.
19. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: a powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671-688.
20. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. (1998). Learning in science: From behaviourisms towards social constructivism and beyond. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin, Eds. International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 3-25). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
21. Duit, R., Komorek, M. & Wilbers, J. (1997). Studies on educational reconstruction of chaos theory. Research in Science Education, 27, 1997, 339-357.
22. Fensham, p. (2004). Defining an identity: The evolution of science education as a field of research. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
23. Fensham, P. (2001). Science content as problematic - Issues for research. In H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Gräber, M. Komorek, A. Kross & P. Reiska, Eds., Research in science education - Past, present, and future (pp. 27-41). Dordrecht, The Netherland: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
24. Fensham, P. (2000). Providing suitable content in the 'science for all' curriculum. In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne, Eds., Improving science education (pp. 147-164). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
25. Fernsham, P., Gunstone, R., & White R., Eds. (1994). The content of science: A constructivist approach to its teaching and Learning. London, UK: Falmer.
26. Fischer, H.E., Klemm, K., Leutner, D., Sumfleth, E., Tiemann, R., & Wirt, J. (2005). Framework for empirical research on science teaching and learning. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 309-349.
27. Fraser, B., & Tobin, K., Eds. (1998). International handbook of science education. Dordrecht, The Netherland: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
28. Gabel, D., Ed. (1994). Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
29. Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N., Eds. (1999). Examining pedagogical content knowledge. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
30. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London, UK: Sage.
31. Heimann, P., Otto, G., & Schulz, W. (1969). Unterricht, Anaylse und Planung [Instruction - analysis and planning] (4th edition). Hannover, Germany: Schroedel.
32. Hopman, S., & Riquarts, K., Eds. (1995). Didaktik and/or Curriculum. Kiel, Germany: IPN - Leibniz-Institute for Science Education.
33. Jenkins, E. (2001). Research in science education in Europe: Retrospect and prospect. In H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Gräber, M. Komorek, A. Kross & P. Reiska, Eds., Research in science education - Past, present, and future (pp. 17-26). Dordrecht, The Netherland: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
34. Kaestle, C.F. (1993). The awful reputation of educational research. Educational Researcher, 22(1), 23-31.
35. Kattmann, U. (2001). Aquatics, flyers, creepers and terrestrials - Students' conceptions of animal classification. Journal of Biological Education, 35, 3, 141-147.
36. Kattmann, U. (2004). Unterrichtsreflexion im Rahmen der Didaktischen Rekonstruktion [Thinking about instruction within the framework of Educational Reconstruction]. Das Seminar, 10 (3), 40-51.
37. Kattmann, U., Duit, R., Gropengießer, H., & Komorek, M. (1995, April). A model of Educational Reconstruction. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST), San Francisco.
38. Klafki, W. (1969). Didaktische Analyse als Kern der Unterrichtsvorbereitung [Educational analysis as the kernel of planning instruction]. In H. Roth & A. Blumental, Eds., Auswahl, Didaktische Analyse (10th edition). Hannover, Germany: Schroedel.
39. Komorek, M., Wendorff, & Duit, R. (2002). Expertenbefragung zum Bildungswert der nichtlinearen Physik [Experts' views of the educational significance of non-linear physics]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 8, 33-51.
40. Komorek, M., & Duit, R. (2004). The teaching experiment as a powerful method to develop and evaluate teaching and learning sequences in the domain of non-linear systems. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 619-633.
41. KVFF (1998). Fachdidaktik in Forschung und Lehre [Domain specific "Didaktik" in research and teaching], Kiel, Germany: IPN - Leibniz-Institute for Science Education.
42. Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2002). Designing and evaluation science teaching sequences: An approach drawing upon the concept of learning demand and a social constructivist perspective on learning. Studies in Science Education, 38, 115-142.
43. Lijnse, P. (1995). "Developmental research" as a way to an empirically based "didactical structure" of science. Science Education, 79, 189-199.
44. McComas, W. F., Ed. (1998). The nature of science in science education rationales and strategies. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
45. Millar, R. (2003). What can we reasonably expect of research in science education? In D. Psillos, P. Kariotoglou, V. Tselfes, E. Hatzikraniotis, G. Fassoulopoulos, & M. Kallery, Eds., Science Education research in the knowledge based society (pp. 3-8). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
46. OECD-PISA (2005). Learning for tomorrow's world - First results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD (http://www.pisa.oecd.org).
47. Osborne, J. C., S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What "ideas-about-science" should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the Expert Community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 40(7), 692-720.
48. Oser, F.K. & Patry, J.-L. (1994). Sichtstrukturen und Basismodelle des Unterrichts: Über den Zusammenhang von Lehren und Lernen unter dem Gesichtspunkt psychologischer Lernverläufe [Surface structure and basis models of lessons: The relations between teaching and learning processes]. In R. Olechowski & B. Rollet, Eds., Theorie und Praxis - Aspekte empirisch pädagogischer Forschung - qualitative und quantitative Methoden (pp. 138-146). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.
49. Phillips, D.C., Ed. (2000). Constructivism in education: Opinions and second opinions on controversial issues. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
50. Psillos, D. (2001). Science education researchers and research in transition: Issues and policies. In H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Gräber, M. Komorek, A. Kross & P. Reiska, Eds., Research in science education - Past, present, and future (pp. 11-16). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
51. Roth, K.J., Druker, S., Kawanaka, T., Okamoto, Y., Trubacova, D., Warvi, D., Rasmussen, D., & Gallimore, R. (2001). Uses of video-based technology and conceptual tools in research: the case of the TIMSS-R Video Study'. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), St. Louis, MO.
52. Roth, W.-M., Tobin, K., Zimmerman, A., Bryant, N., & Davis, C. (2002). Lessons on and from the Dihybrid Cross: An activity - theoretical study of learning in co-teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 253-282.
53. Schnotz, W., Vosniadou, S., & Carretero, M., Eds. (1999). New perspectives on conceptual change. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Pergamon.
54. Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-21.
55. Steffe, L., & Gale, J., Eds. (1995). Constructivism in education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
56. Stigler, J.W., Gonzales, P., Kawanaka, T., Knoll, S., & Serrano, A. (1999). The TIMSS Videotape Classroom Study. Methods and findings from an exploratory research project on eighth-grade mathematics instruction in Germany, Japan and the United States. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
57. Tobin, K. Ed. (1993). The practice of constructivism in science education. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
58. Vosniadou, S. (1996). Towards a revised cognitive psychology for new advances in learning and instruction. Learning and Instruction, 6, 95-109.
59. Westbury, L., Hopmann, S., & Riquarts, K., Eds. (2000). Teaching as reflective practice. The German Didaktik tradition. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
60. West, L., & Staub, F.C. (2003). Content-Focused Coaching: Transforming mathematics lessons. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann/ Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh.
61. White, R. (2001). The revolution in research on science teaching. In V. Richardson, Ed., Handbook of research on teaching, 4th Edition (pp. 457-472). Washington, DC: AERA (American Educational Research Association).
62. Wright, E. (1993). The irrelevancy of science education research: perception or reality? NARST News, 35(1), 1-2.
63. Widodo, A. (2004). Constructivist Oriented Lessons: The learning environment and the teaching sequences. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.