abstract
The actual and potential impact of research on the practice of teaching science has been discussed within both academic and policy communities. Radically different conclusions have been advanced
This paper presents evidence from one study to demonstrate the potential positive impact of research on teaching and learning science on students’ understanding of science. Three short teaching sequences (around 6 hours) were designed by a group of researchers working with a group of teachers, drawing explicitly upon insights from research. Tests of the students’ conceptual understanding were applied both before and after teaching. Furthermore, identical test data were collected from classes of similar students in the same schools, who were following the school’s usual approach to teaching. In cases where students who followed the designed teaching sequences achieved measurably better results than their peers following the school’s usual approach to teaching, other teachers in different schools (who had not been involved in the design of the teaching sequences) implemented the teaching sequences with their students. Students following the designed teaching achieved significantly better scores on tests of conceptual understanding after teaching than their peers who followed their school’s usual approach, irrespective of whether their teacher was involved in the design of the teaching or not
The terms research evidence-informed and research evidence-based practice are introduced (Millar et al., 2006), and used to discuss the implications of findings from research such as that reported in this paper for practice
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bell, B. (1984). Aspects of secondary students’ understanding of plant nutrition: Summary report. (Leeds: Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education)
Bell, D. (2004). Editorial: Engaging with science. Education in Science, 212, 4
Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. (London: King’s College)
Blunkett, D. (2000). Influence or irrelevance: Can social science improve government? Research Intelligence, 71, 12–21
Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R. and Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13
DfEE. (1999). Science: The national curriculum for England. (London: DfEE)
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R. and Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. (Buckingham: Open University Press)
Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P. and Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children’s ideas. (London: Routledge)
Duit, R., Kormorek, M. and Wilbers, J. (1997). Studies on educational reconstruction of chaos theory. Research in Science Education, 27(3), 339–357
Glynn, S., Duit, R. and Thiele, R. (1995). Teaching science with analogies: A strategy for constructing knowledge. (In S. M. Glynn and R. Duit (Eds.), Learning science in the schools: Research reforming practice (pp. 247–273). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.)
Halloun, I. and Hestanes, D. (1985). Common sense conceptions about motion. American Journal of Physics, 53, 1056–1065
Hargreaves, D. H. (1996) Teaching as a research-based profession: Possibilities and prospects (Annual Lecture). (London: Teacher Training Agency)
Hillage, J., Pearson, R., Anderson, A. and Tamkin, P. (1998). Excellence in research on schools. (London: Department for Education and Employment)
Leach, J. and Scott, P. (2002). Designing and evaluating 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
Leach, J. and Scott, P. (2003). Individual and sociocultural perspectives on learning in science education. Science and Education, 12(1), 91–113
Lijnse, P. L. (2000). Didactics of science: The forgotten dimension in science education research? (In R. Millar, J. Leach and J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: The contribution of research (pp 308–326). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.)
Matthews, M. R. (1992). Constructivism and empiricism: an incomplete divorce. Research in Science Education, 22, 299–307
Matthews, M. R. (1997). Introductory comments on philosophy and constructivism in science education. Science and Education, 6(1), 5–14.
Méheut, M. and Psillos, D. (2004). Teaching learning sequences: aims and tools for science education research. International Journal of Science Education, 26(5), 515–535
Millar, R. and Haines, V. (2005). EPSE teaching resources. Retrieved July 2005 from http://www.york. ac.uk/depts/educ/projs/DiagQuestionsIntro_Dec02.htm.
Millar, R., Leach, J., Osborne, J. and Ratcliffe, M. (2006). Improving subject teaching: Lessons from research in science education. (London: RoutledgeFalmer)
Nola, R. (1997). Constructivism in science and science education: A philosophical critique. Science and Education, 6, 55–83
Osborne, J. and Collins, S. (2001). Pupils’ views of the role and value of the science curriculum: a focus group study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 441–467
Pintó, R. (2005). Introducing curriculum innovations in science: Identifying teachers’ transformations and the design of related teacher education. Science Education, 89(1), 1–12
Psillos, D. (1998). Teaching introductory electricity. (In A. Tiberghien, E. L. Jossem and J. Barojas (Eds.), Connecting research in physics education with teacher education: An ICPE Book, International Commission on Physics Education. Retrieved January 2005 from http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/∼jossem/ICPE/TOC.html)
Ratcliffe, M., Bartholomew, H., Hames, V., Hind, A., Leach, J., Millar, R. and Osborne, J. (2005). Evidence-based practice in science education: the researcher-user interface. Research Papers in Education, 22(2), 69–86
Savinainen, A., Scott, P. and Viiri, J. (2005). Using a bridging representation and social interactions to foster conceptual change: Designing and evaluating an instructional sequence for Newton’s third law. Science Education, 89(2), 175–195.
Schwedes, H. and Dudeck, W.-G. (1996). Teaching electricity by help of a water analogy (how to cope with the need for conceptual change). (In G. Welford, J. Osborne, P. Scott (Eds.), Research in science education in Europe (pp. 50–63), London: Falmer Press.)
Shipstone, D. M. (1988). Students’ understanding of simple electrical circuits. Physics Education, 23 (2), 92–96
Staver, J. R. (2005). Let’s change before it’s too late: A speech given at the awards banquet of the Annual Meeting of NARST, Dallas, TX, 7 April 2005. Retrieved July 2005 from http://www.educ.sfu.ca/narstsite/news/e-narstnews7-12-05.pdf.
Tiberghien, A. (1996). Construction of prototypical situations in teaching the concept of energy. (In A. G. Welford, J. Osborne and P. Scott (Eds.), Science education research in Europe: Current issues and themes (pp 100–114). London: Falmer.)
Tooley, J. and Darby, D. (1998). Educational research: A critique. (London: Office for Standards in Education)
US Department of Education. (2002). Strategic plan 2002–2007. (Washington, DC: US Department of Education). Online. Retrieved February 10, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/about/ reports/strat/plan2002-07/plan.pdf
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer
About this paper
Cite this paper
Leach, J. (2007). Contested Territory: The Actual and Potential Impact of Research on Teaching and Learning Science on Students’ Learning. In: Pintó, R., Couso, D. (eds) Contributions from Science Education Research. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5032-9_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5032-9_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-5031-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-5032-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)