Abstract
In this article, the authors describe critical issues related to the pursuit of rigorous and innovative research in the fields of mathematics and science education. The paper is framed to help researchers consider aspects of both their research project and their research proposal. The authors describe features of high-quality and fundable research projects and whether the research is intended to support descriptive, design-oriented, or causal interpretation. They discuss the critical role of grounding proposed research in existing literatures; attending to relevant research from associated fields; and posing research questions that are clear, specific, and feasibly addressable. The goals of the research should cohere with the methodological and analytic design proposed. The authors also discuss the multidisciplinary nature of research that has implications for practice in general and for educational practice more specifically. The authors touch on the characteristics of more and less successful interdisciplinary research teams, especially those that draw from education, cognitive science, methodology, educational psychology, the learning sciences, and relevant STEM disciplinary fields. Examples of STEM education research questions from different genres of research are considered and the authors describe how the questions themselves give rise to specific design choices, methodologies, measures, study samples, and analytical models as well as how they can reflect the disciplinary orientations of the researchers. Implications of these issues for successful educational research grant proposal writing are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Some foundations focus on only one category of research. At NSF, programs exist to support both kinds of research. For example, the EHR Core Research (ECR) program supports fundamental research on learning, workforce development, and broadening participation in all the STEM disciplines. Programs like Discovery Research preK-12 (DRK-12), Advancing Informal STEM Learning (AISL), and Innovations in Undergraduate STEM Education (IUSE) support research and development that is more applied in nature.
References
Ahmadpoor, M., & Jones, B. F. (2019). Decoding team and individual impact in science and invention. Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, 116(28), 13885–13890. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.
Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2013). Is the Nobel prize good for science? The FASEB Journal, 27(12), 4682–4690.
Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2005). Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 703–722.
Hu, S., Torphy, K. T., Opperman, A., Jansen, K., & Lo, Y. J. (2018). What do teachers share within socialized knowledge communities: A case of Pinterest. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 3(2), 97–122.
Institute of Education Sciences & National Science Foundation. (2013). Common guidelines for education research and development. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences and National Science Foundation.
Kwon, S., Solomon, G. E. A., Youtie, J., & Porter, A. L. (2017). A measure of knowledge flow between specific fields: Implications of interdisciplinarity for impact and funding. PLoS One, 12(10), e0185583. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185583.
Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., Wang, Y., Hillemeier, M. M., Oh, Y., & Maczuga, S. (2019). Executive function deficits in kindergarten predict repeated academic difficulties across elementary school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 46, 20–32.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2015). Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Slavin, R. E. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 15–21.
Sloane, F. C. (2008). Randomized trials in mathematics education: Recalibrating the proposed high watermark. Educational Researcher, 37(9), 624–630.
Sloane, F. C., & Wilkins, J. L. M. (2017). Aligning statistical modeling with theories of learning in mathematics education research. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 183–207). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Solomon, G. E. A., Youtie, J., Carley, S., & Porter, A. L. (2019). What people learn about How People Learn: An analysis of citation behavior and the multidisciplinary flow of knowledge. Research Policy, 48(9). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.103835.
Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur's quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Sun, M. (2018). Black teachers’ retention and transfer patterns in North Carolina: How do patterns vary by teacher effectiveness, subject, and school conditions? AERA Open, 4(3), 2332858418784914.
Whitehurst, G. J. (2003). The Institute of Education Sciences: New wine, New Bottles. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in the production of knowledge. Science, 316, 1036.
Youtie, J., Solomon, G. E. A., Carley, S., Kwon, S., & Porter, A. L. (2017). Crossing borders: A citation analysis of connections between Cognitive Science and Educational research … and the fields in between. Research Evaluation, 26, 242–255. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx020.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the many scholarly and intellectual contributions of our dear friend and colleague, Dr. Karen King. Many of the ideas presented in this paper were shaped and sharpened over the years through our conversations with Karen. Her contributions to STEM education research include her scholarship in mathematics education, her national leadership, her distinguished federal service, and her mentoring of young researchers. We hope this paper serves as a unique bookend to her career of service through its potential for ongoing constructive impact, especially for young scholars. We thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful critiques. Finally, we thank Dr. Jinfa Cai, the special issue editor, for his feedback and timely support.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Disclaimer
This material is based upon work supported while serving at the National Science Foundation. Robert J. Ochsendorf and Gregg E.A. Solomon were supported by the Foundation’s IRD program. Any opinion, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
Additional information
This paper is dedicated to the memory of Dr. Karen D. King, who passed away on December 24, 2019
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
King, K.D., Ochsendorf, R.J., Solomon, G.E.A. et al. Posing Fundable Questions in Mathematics and Science Education. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 18 (Suppl 1), 25–36 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10088-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10088-4