Tang Wee
Teo
*,
Mei Ting
Goh
and
Leck Wee
Yeo
Natural Sciences and Science Education (academic group),, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, NIE7-03-83, Singapore, 637616, Singapore. E-mail: tangwee.teo@nie.edu.sg
First published on 13th June 2014
This paper presents findings from a content analysis of 650 empirical chemistry education research papers published in two top-tiered chemistry education journals Chemistry Education Research and Practice and Journal of Chemical Education, and four top-tiered science education journals International Journal of Science Education, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Research in Science Teaching and Science Education from 2004–2013. We found that empirical chemistry education research (CER) papers accounted for 7.7 percent of the publications in the four science education journals. The most highly published area of research was in conceptions and conceptual change and most studies adopted mixed methods. The majority of the studies were conducted in higher education contexts and in the United States. Researchers who publish prolifically in the field included Vicente Talanquer, Derek Cheung, Michael Sanger, Keith Taber, Melanie Cooper and Marcy Towns. Current research trends and gaps are illuminated and possible future work in CER is discussed in the paper.
This paper reviews empirical chemistry education research papers published in the years 2004–2013. This review is a continuation and expansion of previous reviews completed by Kornhauser (1979), Gilbert et al. (2003) , Mahaffy (2004), Towns and Kraft (2011), and Towns (2013) in five aspects. First, we extended the period under review to include papers published up to the end of 2013. The most recent paper (see Towns and Kraft, 2011) that systematically reviewed CER papers covered up to the year 2010. Second, we included in our review the journal Research in Science Education, which was not included in the above-mentioned review, as it was one of the top four SER journals in terms of impact factor. Third, more research topics (e.g., cultural, social, and gender issues, and informal learning) and sub-topics were identified showing the diversity and richness of CER. Fourth, we included the analyses of the different groups of participants and locations of study to show which groups of people and contexts were more or less well represented and understood. Fifth, we included a systematic analysis of the key contributors to show recognition of their efforts in driving the field of CER. The findings of this most recent 10-year review will allow us to reflect on how the field has progressed and offer useful information for current and incoming chemistry education researchers who wish to join the CER fraternity, build on the existing work, or push new boundaries. Insights into the work done by colleagues in the field during this period may be gained. The information may also be valuable to researchers in charting their future research studies in CER.
The scientific basis of the new [chemistry] discipline is this: the methods of chemical education are derived from the structure, logic and methods of chemistry itself. No other discipline can replace chemical science as the basis of the methodology of chemical education (p. 32).
The above view about CER was articulated in the late 1970s. Yet, to date, there exist different viewpoints on what constitutes CER. For example, it can be broadly defined as a “scholarship focused on understanding and improving chemistry learning” (Herron and Nurrenbern, 1999). Bunce and Robinson (1997) referred to CER as the “third branch of our profession” covering topics such as “how and why students learn”, “why is chemistry difficult to learn”, and “what facilitates effective chemistry teaching and learning”. Bodner (2005) had said that, “Chemistry education research is like research in any domain of chemistry. It is the process, not the product that is important”. Basically, these ideas underscore the point that CER should be honoured as a unique domain in its own right—it is a form of disciplinary-based research conducted based upon a rigorous research design that generates evidence and informs practice. This form of disciplinary-based research takes into consideration the unique history of chemistry concept developments, the way chemistry knowledge is constructed, and the specific skill sets and apparatuses used in the chemistry laboratory. As such, the empirical findings from CER may be more understandable, relevant, and applicable to those who practice chemistry in various settings. In this case, the “practice” refers to the practice of teaching, learning, curriculum design, and assessment, and the practice that chemistry education researchers would undertake in carrying out their investigations. Some of these practices can be discipline-specific or common across the three major science disciplines. For example, studies about students' misconceptions are conducted in chemistry, biology, and physics but the content (e.g., chemical equilibrium, microorganisms, friction) may be discussed more in one subject than the other. Fig. 1 shows a Venn diagram to summarise our viewpoint about CER, PER (physics education research), and BER (biology education research).
(1) What was the representation of chemistry education empirical research in science education research journals?
(2) What were the most and least researched on topics?
(3) What research methods (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed) were being adopted?
(4) Which groups of subjects were represented?
(5) Where were the regions and specific locations that the research was carried out?
(6) Who were the key contributors to the field?
We wanted to find out how well published were CER papers in SER journals. The acceptance of CER papers in SER journals would suggest that these papers cater to the wider readership of a broader science education audience and that DER had a place in SER journals. Additionally, we wanted to investigate the research topics that were most and least researched on to identify the strengths and research gaps in CER. The findings of the analysis on research methods would inform us about the research designs and the types of data generated. From this, we could also infer about the research capacity of CER researchers in doing qualitative and/or quantitative research. The profile of the subjects researched on and the locations at which the studies were carried out would allow us to know whose voices were represented, whose voices were left out, and which contexts were better studied than others. This context specific information is important to chemistry education policy making and curriculum change as not all findings are applicable across contexts and settings. Finally, we analysed the authorship to acknowledge the key contributors to CER.
Journala name | Impact factor | 5-Year impact factor |
---|---|---|
a Note that not all journals were indexed journals during the period 2004–2013. However, all of them were indexed under Thomson Reuters by 2013. b CERP merged with University Chemistry Education in 2005. In this paper, we refer to the journal as CERP. c IJSE(B) is not indexed in Thomson Reuters, but it focused on the informal learning aspects of science education research. Hence, CER papers that discuss this topic could be published in IJSE(B) rather than IJSE. We included the papers in IJSE(B) to ensure that the literature search was inclusive. For simplicity, we use the term “IJSE” to refer to IJSE and IJSE(B) in this paper. | ||
Chemistry Education Research Journals | ||
Journal of Chemical Education (JCE) | 0.817 | 0.831 |
Chemistry Education Research and Practice (CERP)b | 1.075 | 1.200 |
Science Education Research Journals | ||
Journal of Research in Science Teaching (JRST) | 2.552 | 3.227 |
Science Education (SE) | 2.382 | 2.712 |
International Journal of Science Education (IJSE and IJSE(B)c) | 1.340 | 1.795 |
Research in Science Education (RSE) | 1.104 | 1.582 |
All papers published in the six journals had undergone a single or double-blind review process. All papers published between 2004 and 2013 were downloaded and underwent further selection. Basically, all papers based upon empirical studies with a focus on chemistry teaching, learning, and assessments were included in the review. Non-empirical papers such as theoretical papers, positional papers, editorials, book reviews, and commentaries were excluded as we wanted to narrow the scope of the review, and focus on studies that described the research methods and discussed findings based upon empirical data. When identifying relevant papers published in SER journals, we conducted a Boolean keyword search using “chemistry” in each journal webpage. We downloaded, read, and filtered out papers that did not have a focus on chemistry education and/or were non-empirical. The chemistry papers in SER journals may be categorised as having an intrinsic, extrinsic, or coincidental relationship to chemistry teaching and learning (Taber, 2013). In CERP, only papers that explore issues and topics: (1) specific to the nature of teaching and learning chemistry as a curriculum subject (i.e., inherent CER with intrinsic relationship), and (2) arising from general teaching and learning issues but clearly motivated by aspects of chemistry teaching and learning (i.e., embedded CER with extrinsic relationship) would be published. In our selection of CER papers in SER journals, we included papers that fall under one of these categories and excluded collateral CER papers that are coincidentally related to but not motivated by a specific interest in chemistry teaching and learning. Additional notes on the inclusion and exclusion process can be found in Appendix A. Finally, a total of 650 papers (see ESI†) were selected and analysed. Table 2 shows the number of papers being analysed from each journal.
Journal | Number of papers | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|
Chemistry Education Research and Practice | 206 | 31.7 |
Journal of Chemical Education | 240 | 36.9 |
International Journal of Science Education (IJSE) | 91 (including one from IJSE (B)) | 14 |
Journal of Research in Science Teaching (JRST) | 45 | 6.9 |
Research in Science Education (RSE) | 46 | 7.1 |
Science Education (SE) | 22 | 3.4 |
Total | 650 | 100 |
The papers were divided into three sets. We each manually and independently coded and tabulated information for one set of papers. To check for inter-rater reliability, each author coded the papers that was previously coded by another person and compared the coding results. Hence, each paper was coded at least twice. We achieved more than 90 percent inter-rater reliability and any disagreements were resolved by discussion until we completely agreed on all the coding.
Fig. 2 A barchart showing the number of empirical CER papers published in IJSE, JRST, RSE and SE from 2004–2013. |
As shown in Fig. 2, IJSE published the most empirical CER papers from 2004 to 2012 with RSE surpassing IJSE in 2013. There was no obvious trend (refer to the darkest shaded bar) in the number of empirical CER papers published in the four journals over the 10-year period. On the average, 20 empirical CER papers were published in SER journals each year during this period.
Each paper was coded under one of the nine categories—(a) teacher education, (b) teaching, (c) learning (students' conceptions and conceptual change); (d) learning (classroom contexts and learner characteristics); (e) goals and policy, curriculum, evaluation and assessment; (f) cultural, social, and gender issues; (g) history, philosophy, and nature of chemistry; (h) educational technology; and (i) informal learning (adapted from Tsai and Wen, 2005). The list of sub-categories (codes) within each category is listed in Appendix B. We used Tsai and Wen's categories and sub-categories as the initial codes and subsequently edited some to make it relevant to CER and the papers reviewed. We also deleted the sub-categories that were not relevant and added new sub-categories identified from reviewing the papers.
Table 3 shows the number and percentages of the 650 papers classified under each category in order of decreasing frequency of occurrences.
Categories | Number of papers | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|
Learning—students' and teachers' conception & conceptual change | 170 | 26.2 |
Teaching | 130 | 20.0 |
Learning—classroom contexts & learner characteristics | 126 | 19.4 |
Goals and policy, curriculum, evaluation, and assessment | 106 | 16.3 |
Educational technology | 71 | 10.9 |
Teacher education | 31 | 4.8 |
Cultural, social and gender issues | 11 | 1.7 |
History, philosophy, and nature of chemistry | 4 | 0.6 |
Informal learning | 1 | 0.1 |
Total | 650 | 100 |
Most empirical studies focused on conception and conceptual change. There was only one study on informal learning outside the classroom. In what follows, we offer more detailed analysis of the top three categories by discussing the common topics of research within each of these categories.
Fig. 3 Number of conceptions and conceptual change papers published over the 10-year period in CERP, JCE, IJSE, JRST, RSE and SE. |
Although the number of papers published in conceptions and conceptual change decreased in some years, there was generally an upward trend in the publication frequency from 2004–2013.
The variety of conceptions and conceptual change studies were broad. It included learners' alternative conceptions or misconception studies in specific chemistry topics; approaches used to solve chemistry questions; difficulties in learning specific topics; instruments used to diagnose, address, or change conceptions; and learning progression of students in specific chemistry topics.
To elaborate, about 50 percent of the studies in this category examined learners' conceptions in specific chemistry topics. These topics include evaporation (see e.g., Gopal et al., 2004 ), atoms and molecules (see e.g., Cokelez and Dumon, 2005), matter (see e.g., Krnel et al., 2005 ; Nakhleh et al., 2005 ), particulate nature of matter (see e.g., Johnson, 2005; Löfgren and Helldén, 2009; Adadan et al., 2010 ; Tsitsipis et al., 2010 ), organic chemistry (see e.g., Ferguson and Bodner, 2008; Rushton et al., 2008 ), chemical equilibrium (see e.g., Ozmen, 2008; Cheung, 2009a, 2009b), buffer (see e.g., Orgill and Sutherland, 2008), ionisation energy ( Tan et al., 2008 ; Tan and Taber, 2009), chemical kinetics (see e.g., Cakmakci, 2010), acids and bases (see e.g., Cartrette and Mayo, 2011), chemical bonding (see e.g., Othman et al., 2008 ; Yayon et al., 2012 ; Cheng and Gilbert, 2013; Luxford and Bretz, 2013), and others. The other more common area of research in this research area was on the use of instruments such as two-tier diagnostic (see e.g., Tan et al., 2005 ; Chandrasegaran et al., 2007 ) and four-tier diagnostic tools (see e.g., Sreenivasulu and Subramaniam, 2013), assessments (see e.g., Vachliotis et al., 2011 ), survey (see e.g., Stains et al., 2011 ), and concept maps (see e.g., Kaya, 2008; Lopez et al., 2011 ; Kibar et al., 2013 ) to study students' conceptions.
Studies that focused on strategies to address alternative conceptions were few and the methods varied. For example, there were studies that examined the use of the Dual Situated Learning Model (DSLM) (see e.g., She, 2004), analogies, conceptual change oriented instruction ( Özkaya et al., 2006 ), concept mapping (see e.g., Chiu and Lin, 2005), and conceptual change text (see e.g., Sendur and Toprak, 2013).
Fig. 4 Number of papers in the category of teaching published over the 10-year period in CERP, JCE, IJSE, JRST, RSE, and SE. |
Fig. 4 shows a general upward trend in the number of publications on teaching. The majority of the papers published on teaching examined the various pedagogies used in teaching. Other areas that were researched on included teacher thinking, pedagogical content knowledge, knowledge representation, and teaching materials.
Studies that examined teaching pedagogies made up about two-thirds of the papers classified under this category. A number of pedagogies were examined, including peer-led team learning (e.g.Lewis and Lewis, 2005; Hockings et al., 2008 ), peer mentoring (e.g.Amaral and Vala, 2009; Essex, 2011), cooperative learning (e.g. Barbosa et al., 2004 ; Sandi-Urena et al., 2011 ), jigsaw classrooms (e.g.Doymus, 2007; Tarhan and Sesen, 2012), demonstrations (e.g.Ashkenazi and Weaver, 2007; Price and Brooks, 2012), Science Writing Heuristic (e.g.Hand and Choi, 2010; Kingir et al., 2012 ), inquiry-based (e.g.Yang and Li, 2009; Sampson and Walker, 2012), hands-on learning (e.g. Oliver-Hoyo et al., 2004 ; Bruck et al., 2010 ), problem-based learning (e.g. Senocak et al., 2007 ; Tosun and Taskesenligil, 2013), context-based learning (e.g. Vaino et al., 2012 ), and others.
The remaining one-third in this category mainly examined the areas, teacher thinking (e.g. Bennett et al., 2005 ; Drechsler and van Driel, 2009), pedagogical content knowledge (e.g.Bond-Robinson, 2005; Drechsler and van Driel, 2008), knowledge representation (e.g.Sarantopoulos and Tsaparlis, 2004; Hilton and Nichols, 2011), and teaching materials (e.g.Drechsler and Schmidt, 2005; Ayyildiz and Tarhan, 2013), each in relatively equal numbers.
Fig. 5 Number of papers in the category of classroom contexts and learner characteristics published over the 10-year period in CERP, JCE, IJSE, JRST, RSE, and SE. |
The number of papers published on classroom contexts and learner characteristics were quite constant but a spike was registered in 2013. The areas of research that were classified under this category included the attitudes and beliefs of participants, cognitive variables in participants, learning approaches, factors affecting learners' chemistry performance, classroom interaction and classroom environment.
Studies, which investigated the attitudes and beliefs of participants, made up about one-third of the papers in this category. This included studies that examined changes in attitude after an intervention (e.g.Jose and Williamson, 2005; Walczak and Walczak, 2009), evaluated and validated scales that measure attitudes and beliefs (e.g.Bauer, 2008; Heredia and Lewis, 2012), and studied attitudes and beliefs towards topics including chemistry teaching (e.g.Markic and Eilks, 2008) and dishonesty (e.g.Del Carlo and Bodner, 2004). Another area, which was commonly researched on among the studies reviewed were cognitive variables, making up about one-quarter of the papers in this category. This included studies that examined on participants' problem-solving abilities (e.g.Cartrette and Bodner, 2010; Overton et al., 2013 ), reasoning skills (e.g.Stains and Talanquer, 2007; Stieff, 2011), difficulties in understanding (Grove and Bretz, 2010; Wood et al., 2013 ), and representation competency ( Madden et al., 2011 ).
Other research areas were less commonly explored. For example, learning approaches were less researched on and more varied. The learning approaches examined included self-directed study (e.g. Leinhardt et al., 2007 ), rote learning and meaningful learning (e.g.Grove and Bretz, 2012) and the use of analogies (e.g.Haglund and Jeppsson, 2012). Classroom interactions were also less researched on and included teacher–student interactions (e.g. Hogstrom et al., 2010 ) and peer interactions (e.g. Jeon et al., 2005 ).
Table 4 shows the number and percentages of the 204 papers in the four SER journals classified under each topic in order of decreasing frequency of occurrences.
Categories | Number of papers | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|
Learning—students' and teachers' conception & conceptual change | 60 | 29.4 |
Learning—classroom contexts & learner characteristics | 46 | 22.5 |
Teaching | 39 | 19.1 |
Goals and policy, curriculum, evaluation, and assessment | 21 | 10.3 |
Educational technology | 17 | 8.3 |
Teacher education | 14 | 6.9 |
History, philosophy, and nature of chemistry | 4 | 2.0 |
Cultural, social and gender issues | 3 | 1.5 |
Informal learning | 0 | 0.0 |
Total | 204 | 100 |
In sum, empirical CER papers published in the year 2004–2013 focused mainly on conceptions, conceptual change, teaching, contexts, and learners' characteristics. However, there were relatively few studies that examined the nature of chemistry, and the cultural, social, gender, historical, philosophical, and informal learning aspects of chemistry education. While the philosophy of chemistry is gradually emerging as a distinctive epistemology for chemistry ( Gilbert et al., 2003 ), there were only four studies (see e.g., Van Aalsvoort, 2004; Brito et al., 2005 ) in this area of research. This was in stark contrast to the “nature of science” work in SER. More work that investigates what constitutes the nature of chemistry—philosophically, epistemologically, and historically—and how it may become integrated into the curriculum is needed so that a better understanding of what chemistry education is all about may be obtained.
Table 5 shows the number and percentage of papers that reported qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods studies. There were relatively more quantitative than qualitative studies. Most studies adopted mixed methods and “mixing” typically occurred at the methods level with the use of qualitative and quantitative approaches such as interviews and Likert-scale surveys. Additionally, many mixed methods studies involved the transformation of qualitative data into quantitative data by coding and counting the frequency. However, the qualitative and quantitative data were presented separately. Hence, the mixing occurred at the methods and analysis levels. Other mixed methods studies that mix theories and methodologies or that present quantitative and qualitative data in an integrated manner can be explored where appropriate to enhance the sophistication of the design. The epistemological thinking of researchers could be invoked in the process as they re-think more complex ways to analyse, represent, and understand the complex social, cultural, and political dimensions of chemistry education.
Type of methods | Number of papers | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|
Qualitative | 141 | 21.7 |
Quantitative | 171 | 26.3 |
Mixed | 338 | 52.0 |
Fig. 6 shows the number of papers examined in our review over the 10-year period that used qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods. There is a general increasing trend for all three methods over the 10 years, although for each of the three methods, a decrease in the number of papers can be observed in some years.
Table 6 shows the number and percentages of papers that reported studies conducted with various groups of participants or participants at various grade levels. More than half of the studies were examined at the higher education level, which includes university faculty, undergraduates, postgraduates, as well as textbooks used at the university level. On the other hand, papers published with pre-school participants only made up 0.5 percent of the total number of papers. This suggests a need to increase the number of studies conducted with this group of participants so that we may understand how young children learn, talk chemistry, and participate in chemistry lessons before they reach the upper levels.
Level of study or group of participants | Number of papers | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|
Preschool | 3 | 0.5 |
Primary/elementary (Grades 1 to 6) | 26 | 4.0 |
Secondary/middle school to junior high school (Grades 7 to 9) | 91 | 14.0 |
Junior to senior high school (Grades 10 to 12/13)/pre-university | 163 | 25.1 |
Higher education | 353 | 54.3 |
Preservice teachers | 54 | 8.3 |
Inservice teachers | 79 | 12.2 |
Others | 7 | 1.1 |
Out of the 650 papers examined, 93 papers included participants from more than one level. Specifically, 67 papers included participants across two levels of study, 22 papers included participants across three levels of study, three papers included participants across four levels of study, and one paper included participants across seven levels of study. This suggests the lack of vertical integration in terms of studies that cut across grade levels. In fact, there were only four studies on learning progression (see e.g., Liu and Lesniak, 2005, 2006; Stevens et al., 2010 ; Johnson and Tymms, 2011) and they were limited to topics such as matter and substance. The little understanding we have about learners' developmental understanding of chemistry across grade levels may subsequently limit curriculum writers, policy makers, and educators' ability to make informed decisions about the sequencing and planning of chemistry topics and content over the whole trajectory of schooling.
Fig. 7 shows the percentage of participants at each level of study across the period of 2004–2013. The majority of the studies were conducted at higher education. This trend was not observed 30 years ago when there was resistance from editors to published work on advanced level courses premised on the argument that the readership would not be wide. As such, CER studies were then rare at science education based conferences such as National Association Research in Science Teaching (Bodner, 2011). However, with the emergence of new appointments of chemistry education faculty within chemistry departments, CER has been built up over the years.
As seen in Fig. 7, the percentage of papers with participants from higher education has a generally increasing trend in this period, whereas the other categories have either a generally decreasing trend or remained relatively stable. When viewed with the results from Table 6, this suggests that there was an increasing number of studies conducted on the participants who were already the most researched on. It also suggests that more emphasis may need to be placed on participants that were less researched on currently.
In Table 7, we listed the world regions and specific locations of study.
World regions | Specific locations |
---|---|
Africa | Algeria; Nigeria; South Africa; Zimbabwe |
Asia | China; Hong Kong; Indonesia; Iran; Israel; Jordan; Korea; Lebanon; Malaysia; Philippines; Saudi Arabia; Singapore; Taiwan |
Europe | Denmark; Estonia; Finland; France; Germany; Greece; Hungary; Ireland; Italy; Norway; Poland; Portugal; Slovakia; Slovenia; Spain; Sweden; The Netherlands; Turkey; UK |
North/Central America | Canada; Puerto Rico; USA |
Oceania | Australia; New Zealand |
South America | Argentina; Brazil; Venezuela |
Others | Unknown (not stated and cannot be inferred from the paper) |
Table 8 shows the number of papers that reported studies conducted in the various regions. Studies that were conducted in North/Central America and Europe made up more than 80 percent of the total number of papers examined. This could be in part, due to the location (CERP and IJSE are UK-based, JCE, JRST and SE are US-based, and RSE is Australian-based) of the journals selected for review.
Regions of study | Number of papers | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|
Note: total percentage exceeds 100% as the studies might have been conducted in more than one location or region.a Location of study was not stated or cannot be inferred from the paper. | ||
North/Central America | 316 | 48.6 |
Europe | 229 | 35.2 |
Asia | 74 | 11.4 |
Oceania | 26 | 4.0 |
Africa | 14 | 2.2 |
South America | 7 | 1.1 |
Othersa | 5 | 0.8 |
Fig. 8 shows the percentage of papers conducted in the various regions from the period of 2004–2013. Studies conducted in North/Central America show a general increasing trend, although there was a major decrease in the year 2009. On the other hand, the number of studies conducted in regions that were underrepresented remained relatively stagnant, or showed a decreasing trend (e.g., Asia) during the period of 2004–2013. This suggests that more research was being conducted in the regions that were already overrepresented. Researchers may consider working on more collaborative studies in other contexts (e.g., comparative and cross-cultural studies) and learn from other scholars who may offer alternative perspectives to chemistry teaching and learning.
Within each region, more papers were published in certain locations compared to others. Table 9 shows the number of papers that reported studies done in the 15 most common locations. About half of the studies were conducted in the USA.
Location of study | Number of papers | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|
USA | 308 | 47.4 |
Turkey | 60 | 9.2 |
Greece | 29 | 4.5 |
UK | 27 | 4.2 |
Israel | 26 | 4.0 |
Germany | 24 | 3.7 |
Australia | 23 | 3.5 |
The Netherlands | 19 | 2.9 |
Sweden | 17 | 2.6 |
Singapore | 12 | 1.8 |
Taiwan | 12 | 1.8 |
Spain | 11 | 1.7 |
France | 10 | 1.5 |
South Africa | 9 | 1.4 |
Hong Kong | 7 | 1.1 |
Continent level | Africa | Asia | North/Central America | South America | Europe | Oceania | Othersa |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Note: total count of papers exceeds 650 as some papers conducted their studies on participants from different levels.a ‘Others' include papers where the region of study was unknown and could not be inferred, as well as papers which were conducted in two or more regions. | |||||||
Preschool | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
Primary/elementary (Grades 1 to 6) | 0 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 13 | 1 | 1 |
Secondary/middle school to junior high school (Grades 7 to 9) | 0 | 18 | 20 | 1 | 46 | 3 | 3 |
Junior to senior high school (Grades 10 to 12/13)/pre-university | 4 | 28 | 39 | 3 | 75 | 10 | 4 |
Higher education | 7 | 14 | 254 | 2 | 56 | 12 | 8 |
Preservice teachers | 3 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 35 | 2 | 2 |
Inservice teachers | 1 | 21 | 24 | 1 | 29 | 2 | 1 |
Other groups | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
Using the above formula, we computed the scores and listed the names of the top eleven published scholars with a score above 4 in CER in Table 11. We also listed their areas of interest as indicated from the scholars' webpages and/or curricula vitae, their current affiliation, and editorial positions (if any). Note that eight of the eleven authors were based in USA, one in UK, one in Australia and one in Hong Kong.
Score | Papers | Name | Institute, location | Area of interest | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
7.800 | 15 | Vicente A. Talanquer | University of Arizona, USA | • Students' explanation and reasoning | Editorial board member: IJSE & CERP |
6.000 | 6 | Derek Cheung | The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong | • Chemistry education | |
• Curriculum development | |||||
• School-based assessment | |||||
• Assessment of affective learning outcomes | |||||
5.900 | 10 | Michael Sanger | Middle Tennessee State University, USA |
• Identifying student misconceptions in chemistry
• Designing and evaluating instructional methods to confront student misconceptions • Using computer-based visualization strategies (computer animations, electron density plots) to improve students' conceptual knowledge of chemistry at the molecular level |
|
5.592 | 11 | Keith S. Taber | University of Cambridge, UK |
• Learners' ideas, misconceptions, alternative conceptions and alternative frameworks
• Conceptual understanding, conceptual integration and conceptual change and development • Constructivism in science education • Learner thinking and metacognition • Explanations in science • Teaching about the nature of science • Challenging high attainers |
Editor: CERP Editorial board member: IJSE |
5.376 | 13 | Melanie Cooper | Michigan State University, USA |
• Curricula development and assessment
• The effect of interventions and educational environments on problem solving and metacognition • Investigation of representational competence • BeSocratic: a free-form interactive system |
Editorial board member: JRST Advisory Panel: CERP |
5.180 | 14 | Marcy H. Towns | Purdue University, USA |
• Small-group learning,
• Computer supported collaborative learning |
Associate Editor: JCE |
4.623 | 9 | Scott E. Lewis | University of South Florida, USA | • Peer-led team learning | |
4.503 | 14 | David Treagust | Curtin University, Perth, Australia | • Students’ conceptions and conceptual change | Editor: IJSE |
• Multiple representations | Editorial advisory board member: CERP | ||||
• Students’ and teachers’ understanding | Editorial board member: RSE | ||||
• Two-tier diagnostic instruments | |||||
4.260 | 13 | Stacey Lowery Bretz | Miami University, USA |
• Development of assessment measures to diagnose chemistry misconceptions and to stimulate metacognition and reflection in both the teaching and learning of chemistry.
• Application of cognitive science theories to the teaching and learning of chemistry. • Experiments, taxonomies and rubrics for inquiry learning in the chemistry laboratory. • Children's learning of chemistry. • Project evaluation, with an emphasis on qualitative measures. |
|
4.175 | 9 | Nathaniel Grove | University of North Carolina Wilmington, USA |
• Factors influencing meaningful/rote learning in chemistry
• Students' epistemological development in chemistry. • The development of representational competence in chemistry. • The role of metacognition in developing representation competence. • The use of technology in the chemistry classroom. |
|
4.078 | 13 | Jennifer E. Lewis | University of South Florida, USA |
• Diagnostic, assessment inventory
• Student attitude, attitude change |
Table 12 shows the breakdown of the topics of papers published by the eleven authors. Similar to the overall trend on research topics, conception change was the most prevalent area of research but there was less focus on the topic of teaching. We found stronger emphasis on the topic “Goals, Policy, Curriculum, Evaluation, and Assessment”, although this could be explained by Towns' area of interest, which contributed to 29.1 percent of papers in the category.
Categories | Number of papers | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|
Learning—students' and teachers' conception & conceptual change | 46 | 36.2 |
Learning—classroom contexts & learner characteristics | 30 | 23.6 |
Goals and policy, curriculum, evaluation, and assessment | 24 | 19.0 |
Teaching | 21 | 16.5 |
Educational technology | 4 | 3.1 |
Teacher education | 1 | 0.8 |
Cultural, social and gender issues | 1 | 0.8 |
Total | 127 | 100 |
Table 13 provides a more detailed breakdown of the frequency of papers published by the respective scholars according to the research topics.
Author | Category (frequency/percentage (%)) | Total | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Conception | Context | Policy | Teaching | Technology | Teacher Ed | Social | ||
Talanquer | 4 (8.7%) | 6 (20.0%) | 1 (4.2%) | 4 (19.0%) | — | — | — | 15 (11.9%) |
Cheung | 3 (6.5%) | 2 (6.7%) | — | 1 (4.8%) | — | — | — | 6 (4.7%) |
Sanger | 4 (8.7%) | — | 1 (4.2%) | 3 (14.3%) | 2 (50.0%) | — | — | 10 (7.9%) |
Taber | 11 (23.9%) | — | — | — | — | — | — | 11 (8.7%) |
Cooper | 4 (8.7%) | 4 (13.3%) | 2 (8.3%) | 2 (9.5%) | — | 1 (100%) | — | 13 (10.2%) |
Towns | 1 (2.2%) | 1 (3.3%) | 7 (29.1%) | 2 (9.5%) | 2 (50.0%) | — | 1 (100%) | 14 (11.0%) |
S. Lewis | 2 (4.3%) | 1 (3.3%) | 3 (12.5%) | 3 (14.3%) | — | — | — | 9 (7.1%) |
Treagust | 10 (21.8%) | — | 1 (4.2%) | 3 (14.3%) | — | — | — | 14 (11.0%) |
Bretz | 4 (8.7%) | 4 (13.3%) | 4 (16.7%) | 1 (4.8%) | — | — | — | 13 (10.2%) |
Grove | 2 (4.3%) | 5 (16.8%) | 2 (8.3%) | — | — | — | — | 9 (7.1%) |
J. Lewis | 1 (2.2%) | 7 (23.3%) | 3 (12.5%) | 2 (9.5%) | — | — | — | 13 (10.2%) |
Total | 46 (100%) | 30 (100%) | 21 (100%) | 21 (100%) | 4 (100%) | 1 (100%) | 1 (100%) | 1127 (100%) |
We conducted a further analysis of the levels of study by the location of study by the above scholars (see Table 14). We found that most studies conducted by them were predominately at higher education. This was coherent with the earlier discussion that studies conducted in North/Central America had a strong focus on higher education. As eight of the eleven authors are based in USA, overall results reflected this tendency.
Leve | Location (frequency/percentage (%)) | Total | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
USA | Hong Kong | UK | Singapore | Australia | France | Puerto Rico | Sweden | Germany | Taiwan | Philippines | Multiple | ||
University | 88 (94.6%) | — | — | — | 3 (50%) | — | 1 (100%) | — | — | — | 1 (100%) | 1 (33.3%) | 94 (74.0%) |
Pre-service | 1 (1.1%) | 1 (16.7%) | — | 2 (22.2%) | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 4 (3.1%) |
In-service | 1 (1.1%) | 2 (33.3%) | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 3 (2.4%) |
Grades 10–13 | 1 (1.1%) | 2 (33.3%) | 2 (50%) | 4 (44.4%) | 2 (33.3%) | 1 (100%) | — | 1 (100%) | 1 (100%) | 1 (100%) | — | 1 (33.3%) | 16 (12.6%) |
Grades 7–9 | — | — | 1 (25%) | 3 (33.4%) | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 4 (3.1%) |
Others | 1 (1.1%) | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1 (0.9%) |
Multiple | 1 (1.1%) | 1 (16.7%) | 1 (25%) | — | 1 (16.7%) | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1 (33.3%) | 5 (3.9%) |
Total | 93 (100%) | 6 (100%) | 4 (100%) | 9 (100%) | 6 (100%) | 1 (100%) | 1 (100%) | 1 (100%) | 1 (100%) | 1 (100%) | 1 (100%) | 3 (100%) | 127 (100%) |
The findings of our 10-year review of empirical CER journals in the six journals for the period 2004–2013 were consistent with the DBER (Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering) report and associated committee documents (Towns and Kraft, 2011; Singer et al., 2012 ; Towns, 2013).
First, we noted that the majority of the studies were conducted in higher education contexts, most of them focused on general chemistry or courses at the introductory level. A few studies were reported on upper-level undergraduates who majored in chemistry or postgraduates in chemistry.
Second, a few studies examined how misconceptions and alternative conceptions can be effectively addressed. We noted that the strategies that were studied were varied and conducted by one or only a few studies, on one group of learners, for one topic, and over a limited period of time. Perhaps, the same strategy could be implemented in a few other learning contexts, with different types of learners, and evaluated for its effectiveness over a longer period of time. In that way, pedagogical knowledge about a sustainable and effective conceptual change strategy may be developed to inform practice.
Third, a few studies examined how factors such as age, race, gender, culture, and ethnicity affect teaching and learning. Often times, the sampled participants were perceived and analysed as a homogenous group hence, limiting our understanding about how these factors could interplay with the learning environment, intervention, or curriculum to bring out the results observed. This could be a step towards achieving the broader vision of a “science for all” (Lee and Fradd, 2008) or “science for everyone” (Fensham, 1985) through understanding the learners' experiences in process (Bodner, 2005). Mahaffy (2004) used the metaphor of a tetrahedron to describe chemistry education as “tetrahedral chemistry education” (p. 229). The three dimensions of the tetrahedron underscore the human element emphasising on two new dimensions of learning chemistry: (1) “the rich web of economic, political, environmental, social, historical, and philosophical considerations, woven into our understanding of the chemical concepts, reactions, and processes that we teach to our students and the general public” and; (2) pedagogical strategies that cater to the learning styles of the learners and that introduces the chemical world at the symbolic, macroscopic, and molecular levels while acknowledging the existing conceptions and misconceptions that these learners already have.
According to Towns (2013), there is a need for CER to tap into the advantages of qualitative and quantitative methods and consider having more mixed methods studies. Our coding revealed that most studies were mixed in that a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods was adopted. In most cases, qualitative data were transformed into quantitative data by coding the qualitative texts and counting the frequencies. Nonetheless, mixing could also be done purposefully in other ways to enhance the sophistication of the research design and offer more comprehensive insights about the phenomena under study (Greene, 2007; Creswell, 2014). Theories, theoretical frameworks from different domains (e.g., psychology, learning theories, curriculum, and sociology), and research methodologies (e.g., ethnography, case study, narrative, and survey methodology) could be mixed. For example, researchers studying students' alternative conceptions could integrate the constructivist and sociological lens to examine how students exercise their agency within the structures of the science classroom as they interact with their peers and co-construct understandings of the science concepts. The power relationships between the teacher and students in the classroom can also help us understand why students harbour certain conceptions and perhaps, a more dialectical relationship between the student and teacher could promote more effective teaching and learning. Additionally, researchers can explore ways to represent quantitative and qualitative findings in an integrated way rather than separate tables and excerpts. In sum, purposeful and carefully designed research studies could offer broader and deeper insights so that they may be generalised for policy-making purposes and provide contextualised knowledge to teachers.
Journal | Criteria for inclusion | Criteria for exclusion |
---|---|---|
CERP* |
• Year 2004: papers labelled under the category “empirical study”
• Year 2005–2007: papers labelled under the category “educational research” • Year 2008: papers labelled under the category “research” |
• Year 2004: papers labelled under the categories e.g., “paper”, “research report: concepts”, “report on research methodology”, “contributions of educational research to practice of chemistry education”
• Year 2005–2007: papers labelled under the categories “practice” and “perspectives” • Year 2008: papers labelled under the categories “practice”, “proceedings”, “introduction”, and “review” |
JCE |
• Issue 1, 2004 – Issue 4, 2011: papers labelled under the category “research: science and education”
• Issue 5, 2011 – Issue 12, 2013: papers labelled “chemical education research” under the category “articles” |
• Issue 1, 2004 – Issue 4, 2011: papers labelled under the categories “chemical education today”, “viewpoints: chemists on chemistry”, “chemistry for everyone”, “in the class/in the classroom”, “in the laboratory”, “information, textbooks, media, resources”, and “on the web”
• Issue 5, 2011 – Issue 12, 2013: papers labelled under the categories “editorial”, “commentary”, “reports”, “news and announcements”, “letters”, “additions and corrections”, “books and media reviews”, “activities”, “demonstrations”, “laboratory experiments”, “technology reports”, and “communications” • Issue 5, 2011 – Issue 12, 2013: papers labelled under the category “articles” • Papers that focus on chemistry content, as opposed to chemistry education |
JRST, SE, IJSE, & RSE | Papers identified using the Boolean search “chemistry” in the respective journal webpage. |
Papers whose focus topic is not about chemistry education per se such as studies that
• Reported chemistry teachers as participants but the topic was not specifically about their chemistry teaching, education, etc. • Focused on the tools of teaching/learning that is not specific to chemistry but applicable to other science subjects e.g., data loggers • Discussed general science education-related viewpoints using chemistry examples • Examined laboratory or practical curriculum/work/learning/teaching but not chemistry lab in particular • Focused on how a theoretical construct adopted from other domains (e.g., sociology, anthropology) was used to examine a chemistry context/setting • Examined scientific representations using chemistry examples but chemistry teaching and learning was not the main focus • Focused on models and modelling in general and using some chemistry examples but chemistry teaching and learning was not the main focus • Examined molecular level thinking using chemistry examples but chemistry teaching and learning was not the main focus |
Category | Sub-categories (or codes) |
---|---|
Chemistry teacher education |
• Preservice and continuing professional development of chemistry teachers
• Chemistry teacher education programs and policy • Field experience • Issues related to chemistry teacher education reform • Chemistry teacher as researcher/action research |
Teaching |
• Pedagogical knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge
• Teaching strategies e.g., metaphors, images, analogies, demonstration, peer-led learning, cooperative learning, heuristics, inquiry, models, jig-saw, etc. • Teachers' goals and thinking (e.g., curriculum decisions) • Inservice teacher beliefs and perceptions |
Learning—students' and teachers' conception & conceptual change |
• Methods for investigating student understanding
• Students' alternative conceptions • Instructional approaches for conceptual change • Conceptual change in learners • Conceptual development. |
Learning—classroom contexts & learner (students and teachers) characteristics |
• Students' motivation, beliefs, attitudes, perceptions and anxiety (affective dimensions of chemistry learning) teachers' views, beliefs, understanding, content knowledge and readiness to teach
• Instruments to measure the affective dimensions • Learners' experiences • Learning environment (e.g., laboratory environment) • Individual differences (e.g., chemistry literacy, abilities) • Reasoning, mental capacities, competencies, difficulties • Learning approaches and styles • Teacher–student interactions and peer interactions • Language, writing and discourse in learning |
Goals and policy, curriculum, evaluation, and assessment |
• Curriculum development, change, implementation, dissemination and evaluation
• Curriculum materials (content and structure) • Assessment and grading (e.g., format, types and rubrics) • Affective dimensions of assessment construction and performance • Factors affecting performance • Educational measurement (e.g., validation of instrument) • Role of science in public policy • Goals and policies (e.g., chemistry-related career choices) • Chemistry curriculum reform |
Cultural, social and gender issues |
• Cultural, ethnic, social and gender issues related to chemistry education
• English language learners (non-native english learners) learning chemistry |
History, philosophy, and nature of chemistry |
• Historical of chemistry
• Philosophy and chemistry • Nature of science in chemistry curriculum materials |
Educational technology |
• Interactive multimedia (e.g., videos, animations)
• Integration of technology into teaching and teacher training • Learning and assessment involving the use of technology |
Informal learning | • Out-of-school learning |
Footnote |
† Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available: A list of CER papers that met the review criteria for analysis in this study. See DOI: 10.1039/c4rp00104d |
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2014 |