Advertisement

Reflections on Beyond the Gold Standards Era and Ways of Promoting Compelling Arguments about Science Literacy for All

  • Larry D. Yore
  • Mack C. ShelleyII
  • Brian Hand
Chapter

This book flowed from the deliberations of the 2nd Island Conference (held at Dunsmuir Lodge in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada) and several American Statistical Association and National Association for Research in Science Teaching symposia in the United States that examined the ramifications of the Gold Standard for educational research found in government legislation and promoted by the US Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences. Planning and development of the book expanded the authors and contributions beyond the 2nd Island Conference participants so as to sample international perspectives more broadly related to literacy and science education research quality assurance, practices, and other issues. Some of these issues were anticipated and addressed by the authors while other issues were not anticipated and emerged from the collective insights of several authors as the book evolved.

Keywords

Science Education Educational Research Problem Space Information Communication Technology Science Education Research 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans:Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.project2061. org/publications/sfaa/online/sfaatoc.htm
  2. American Educational Research Association. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications. Retrieved June 23, 2008, from https://www.aera.net/ uploadedFiles/Opportunities/StandardsforReportingEmpiricalSocialScience_PDF.pdf
  3. August, D.,&Shanahan, T. (2006a). Introduction and methodology. In D. August&T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth (pp. 1–42). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. August, D.,&Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006b). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Australian Council for Educational Research. (n.d.). Homepage. Retrieved June 19, 2008, from http://www.acer.edu.au/
  6. Brewer, D. J.,&Goldhaber, D. D. (2008). Examining the incentives in educational research. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(5), 361–364.Google Scholar
  7. Brickhouse, N. W. (2006). Celebrating 90 Years of Science Education: Reflections on the gold standard and ways of promoting good research [Editorial]. Science Education, 90(1), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohn, D. (2006). Jumping into the political fray: Academics and policy-making. Institute for Research on Public Policy (IRPP) Matters, 7(3), 8–36. Retrieved from http://www.irpp.org/ pm/index.htmGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohn, D. (2007, October). How can academics influence public policy? Academic Matters, 18–19.Google Scholar
  10. Fensham, P. J. (2008). Science education policy-making: Eleven emerging issues. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001567/156700e.pdf
  11. Fusarelli, L. D. (2008). Flying (partially) blind: School leaders' use of research in decision making. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(5), 365–358.Google Scholar
  12. Ginsburg, H. P., Lee, J. S.,&Boyd, J. S. (2008). Mathematics education for young children: What it is and how to promote it. Social Policy Report, 22(1), 3–22.Google Scholar
  13. Graesser, A. C., Gernsbacher, M. A.,&Goldman, S. R. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of discourse processes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Hand, B., Yore, L. D.,&Prain, V. (Eds.). (2006). Natural science, cognitive science and pedagogical influences on science literacy: Empowering research and informing instruction [Special Issue]. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2/3), 99–314.Google Scholar
  15. Henig, J. R. (2008). The evolving relationship between researchers and public policy. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(5), 357–360.Google Scholar
  16. Hess, F. M. (2008). The politics of knowledge.Phi Delta Kappan, 89(5), 354–345.Google Scholar
  17. Horizon Research Inc. (n.d.).Homepage. Retrieved June 23, 2008, fromhttp://www.horizon-research.com/
  18. International Reading Association&National Council of Teachers of English. (1996).Standards for English language arts. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ncte.org/about/over/standards?source=gs
  19. Knott, J.,&Wildavsky, A. (1980). If dissemination is the solution, what is the problem?Science Communication, 1(4), 537–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Landry, R., Lamari, M.,&Amara, N. (2003). The extent and determinants of the utilization of university research in government agencies.Public Administration Review, 63(2), 192–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lavis, J. N., Robertson, D., Woodside, J. M., McLeod, C. B.,&Abelson, J. (2003). How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers?Milbank Quarterly, 81(2), 221–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lawson, A. E. (2005). Conducting high quality educational research [Editorial].International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3(1), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lawson, A. E. (2007, March).How “scientific” is science education research? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  24. Ludwig, J.,&Phillips, D. (2007). The benefits and costs of Head Start.Social Policy Report, 21(3), 3–18.Google Scholar
  25. Malcom, S. M. (2008, January).Producing “high quality” teachers: The science and the education. Keynote Address at the annual international meeting of the Association for Science Teacher Education, St. Louis, MO.Google Scholar
  26. Munby, H. (2003). Educational research as disciplined inquiry: Examining the facets of rigor in our work [Guest editorial].Science Education,87(2), 153–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. O'Rourke, J. M., Roehrig, S., Heeringa, S. G., Reed, B. G., Birdsall, W. C., Overcashier, M., et al. (2006). Solving problems of disclosure risk while retaining key analytic uses of publicly released microdata.Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics,1(3), 63–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008).Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. London: Nuffield Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/fileLibrary/pdf/Sci_ Ed_in_Europe_Report_Final.pdfGoogle Scholar
  29. Phillips, D. C. (2006). A guide for the perplexed: Scientific educational research, methodolatry, and the gold versus platinum standards.Educational Research Review,1(1), 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Porter, A. C., & Polikoff, M. S. (2007). NCLB: State interpretations, early effects, and suggestions for reauthorization.Social Policy Report,21(4), 3–14.Google Scholar
  31. Rees, W. E. (2008, April-May). Science, cognition and public policy.Academic Matters, 9–12.Google Scholar
  32. Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., Walberg-Henriksson, H., & Hemmo, V. (2007). Science education now: A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Luxembourg, Belgium: European Commission. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/docu-ment_library/pdf_06/report-rocard-on-science-education_en.pdf
  33. Rodgers, W., & Nolte, M. (2006). Solving problems of disclosure risk in an academic setting: Using a combination of restricted data and restricted access methods. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(3), 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sieber, J. E. (2006). Introduction: Data sharing and disclosure limitation techniques. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(3), 47–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sieber, J. E. (2007). Respect for persons and informed consent—A moving target. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2(3), 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Simon, M. A. (2004). Raising issues of quality in mathematics education research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(3), 157–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Smith, C. L., & Wenk, L. (2006). Relations among three aspects of first-Year college students' epistemologies of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(8), 747–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Society for Research in Child Development. (n.d.). Homepage. Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://www.srcd.org/
  39. United States National Research Council. (1996). The national science education standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog. php?record_id = 4962
  40. United States National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research. R. J. Shavelson & L. Towne (Eds.). Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  41. United States National Research Council. (2004). Advancing scientific research in education. Committee on Research in Education. L. Towne, L. L. Wise, & T. M. Winters (Eds.). Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  42. Xu, L. H., & Clarke, D. (2007, April). Artefacts and distributed cognition: Towards a new perspective on science learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  43. Yore, L. D. (2003). Quality science and mathematics education research: Considerations of argument, evidence and generalizability [Guest editorial]. School Science and Mathematics, 103(1), 1–7.Google Scholar
  44. Yore, L. D., Hand, B., & Florence, M. K. (2004). Scientists' views of science, models of writing, and science writing practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 338–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yore, L. D., Pimm, D., & Tuan, H.-L. (2007). The literacy component of mathematical and scientific literacy. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(4), 559–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yore, L. D., & Yore, S. A. (2007, January). Effective reporting of research results in the international, multicultural, education community: Bridging the gap between authors and readers. Paper presented at the international meeting of the Association for Science Teacher Education, Clearwater, FL.Google Scholar
  47. Zarate, A. O., & Zayatz, L. (2006). Essentials of the disclosure review process: A federal perspective. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(3), 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zientek, L. R., Capraro, M. M., & Capraro, R. M. (2008). Reporting practices in quantitative teacher education research: One look at the evidence cited in the AERA panel report. Educational Researcher, 37(4), 208–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Larry D. Yore
    • Mack C. ShelleyII
      • Brian Hand

        There are no affiliations available

        Personalised recommendations