Tea 20225

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 26

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 45, NO. 5, PP.

574–599 (2008)

Transversal Traits in Science Education Research Relevant for


Teaching and Research: A Meta-interpretative Study

J. Bernardino Lopes,1 António Alberto Silva,2 José P. Cravino,1 Nilza Costa,3


Luı́s Marques,3 Carlos Campos2
1
Departamento de Fı́sica, Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro,
Apartado 1013, 5001-801 Vila Real, Portugal
2
Escola Superior de Educação do Instituto Politécnico do Porto, Porto, Portugal
3
Departamento de Didáctica e Tecnologia Educativa, Universidade de Aveiro,
Campus Universitário de Santiago, Aveiro, Portugal

Received 5 April 2005; Accepted 22 June 2007

Abstract: This study is a meta-interpretative analysis that focuses on research conducted and
published by other researchers. Concepts central to this study include global practical relevance,
curriculum design, and formative situation. We analyzed 35 studies selected from 374 published studies in
the years 2000 and 2001 in three journals referenced in the International Scientific Index. Using a replicable
methodology developed specifically for this research, we found evidence of s clusters of variables that
suggest the existence of transversal traits in the 35 science education research studies. These results form a
reference framework of theoretical and practical knowledge relevant for research and practice pertaining to
teaching and learning science. ß 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 45: 574–599, 2008
Keywords: science teacher education; curriculum development; science education

This study is of a meta-interpretative nature. We assume a grounding theoretical framework


and broad aims that stem from the studies of other researchers related to classroom context.1 We
make use of the dominant classification of research lines in science education research, which we
believe necessarily preserves the richness and specificity of this field of knowledge. Nevertheless,
these research areas are not sufficiently articulated among one another. Lacking such articulation,
science education research has produced knowledge that teachers find difficult to use in their
practice. The research topics are intrinsically complex and multidimensional and they require
holistic approaches to bring together various dimensions and constructs. The lack of articulation

Contract grant sponsor: Portuguese Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education; Contract grant number:
POCTI/CED/36466/99-00.
Correspondence to: J.B. Lopes; E-mail: blopes@utad.pt
DOI 10.1002/tea.20225
Published online 8 April 2008 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

ß 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.


TRANSVERSAL TRAITS 575

between researcher and practitioner needs is the problem that we address in this meta-
interpretative study.
The present study seeks to contribute to the construction of a practical and theoretical
reference framework that is enriched in its articulation and usefulness. We sought studies that
linked researcher to researcher and researcher to practitioner. We located and grouped these
studies in clusters according to common characteristics that we further analyzed to identify
transversal traits in educational research. By transversal traits, we mean characteristics that are
common to the research studies, even those with distinctly different theoretical and methodo-
logical foci. Accomplishing our goal required the design of an appropriate methodological
framework.
A total of 374 studies published in 2000 and 2001 were located for this study, which were
taken from three journals referenced in the International Scientific Index (ISI): Science Education
(SE); International Journal of Science Education (IJSE); and Journal of Research in Science
Teaching (JRST). Using criteria related to practical relevance, we selected 35 studies that constitute
the corpus of our meta-interpretative study.
Four concepts were central to this study: global practical relevance; curriculum design;
formative situation; and transversal traits. From an elaboration of the first three concepts, we
obtained 23 variables for analysis. The 35 studies forming the corpus were then analyzed,
compared, and grouped, based on these 23 variables. The groupings, or clusters, were generated
with the STATISTICA software (StatSoft, 1997), and the clusters constituted the data from which we
identified transversal traits.
We explain the various methodological aspects of our analysis, particularly the decisions
related to accuracy, replicability, and stability of the clusters, and the stability of the results formed
from the clusters. From our results we propose a reference framework for teaching and research
and suggest future developments.

Current Trends in Science Education

Studies on the Definition of Science Education as a Research Field


Various investigators (Cachapuz, Praia, Gil-Perez, Carrascosa, & Martinez-Terrades, 2001;
Silva, 1999; Yager, 1984) have examined the epistemological status of science education as an
autonomous field of knowledge. Adúriz-Bravo and Izquierdo (2002) considered the historical
development of science education as encompassing five stages, the last of which—the present
one—is designated as consolidated discipline. Consolidation requires finding interconnections
among the different lines of inquiry if research is to guide and ground innovative curricular
developments (Adúriz-Bravo, Duschl, & Izquierdo, 2003). It is along this line of inquiry and
reasoning that we situate our present study.

Studies on the Articulation of Research Lines With Each Other


Science education research has been developed primarily around specific research lines, each
corresponding to one or more curricular dimensions in science teaching (Costa, Praia, & Marques,
1999). Cachapuz et al. (2001) identified the following lines of inquiry as those that have been more
fully developed: (a) alternative conceptions; (b) problem solving; (c) experimental work;
(d) curriculum; (e) science–technology–society relationships; (f) language and communication;
(g) assessment; (h) teacher training; (i) epistemology and science teaching and learning; (j)
sociological issues; (k) axiological issues; and (l) metacognition.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
576 LOPES ET AL.

Science education research has examined objects of study that capture partial aspects of the
science teaching and learning process. These studies are important, but they fail to capture
the richness of the science classroom. There are arguments in the literature that question whether
the complexity of the classroom is amenable to research on subcomponents of the teaching and
learning process. Martinez-Terrades (1998) noted the need for studies that integrate different lines
of research (in Gil-Perez et al., 1999).
Several researchers concluded that innovations in teaching and learning will only produce
results if attention is paid to the complexity of the processes (Cachapuz et al., 2001; Linn, 1987).
For example, there are studies that focus on assessment of students, but this topic is related to
learning (Black, 1998) and thus to learning contexts (e.g., laboratory work). Likewise, Gil-Perez
et al. (1999) questioned the separation among studies related to concept learning, paper-and-
pencil problem solving, or laboratory work. This separation reflects the traditional compartmen-
talization of the components of instruction (lectures, tutorial, and laboratory classes) at a time
when research needs to be integrated if it is to inform science teaching and learning practice.

Studies on the Articulation of Research With Practice


Several studies have noted the reduced influence of research results on classroom practice
(Costa, Marques, & Kempa, 2000; Gilbert, 2002; Kempa, 1992). As a consequence of the
disconnection, many researchers set a priority to articulate research with teaching practices (e.g.,
Costa, 2003; UDC, 2003). One of the reasons stated in the literature for the lack of integration is the
fragmented nature of most science education research. Several recommendations have been made
to make research knowledge more useful and relevant (Bennett, 2003), including meta-analysis
studies (Hammersley, 2002) and pragmatization of research (Evans, 2002).2

Fundamental Concepts in This Study


Four concepts were central to this study. Global practical relevance has been used as a guide
in our search for articulation of theory with practice. Curriculum design has been considered a
general fundamental concept, as it refers to expected learning outcomes and ways to achieve them.
We also used the concept formative situation, because it explicitly interconnects key curricular
aspects that are needed for consolidated learning. The corpus of this study (the set of studies to be
fully analyzed) has been built using these concepts as the basis for study selection. The fourth
concept, transversal traits, refers to characteristics that are common to the research studies and are
what we sought to produce from an analysis of the corpus.
For a study to have global practical relevance it must cumulatively satisfy the following
conditions:

1. Interconnections between research lines (a need verified in the literature, see Martinez-
Terrades [1998]), comprehensively related to the complexity of teaching and learning
processes.
2. Evidence of feasibility in formal teaching and learning environments, showing in a
detailed and convincing manner that the proposals made do not imply unreasonable
demands on procedures, resources, time, and curriculum.
3. Explicit assumption of a theoretical framework that guides the research questions and the
finding and discussion of results.

The concept of curriculum design has two components (Roldão, 1999): learning outcomes
and ways to achieve them. To achieve the curricular outcomes, five conditions must be taken into
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
TRANSVERSAL TRAITS 577

account (Lopes, 2004), including: (1) the students’ knowledge and difficulties; (2) the
contextualization of the themes; (3) the conceptual fields and their structure; (4) the competencies
to develop; and (5) the organization of teaching. Recent research studies about curriculum design
are less nomothetic and more descriptive (White, 2002). This shift is necessary to elucidate the
relationships between students’ learning and aspects such as the incorporation of epistemological
reflection in teaching practices; normative curricula analysis; social, technological, and
environmental relevance; and construction and evaluation of didactic materials (Kelly & Lesh,
2000). Studies about curriculum design should lead to better foundations, better teaching, greater
relevance to students, and increased effectiveness (Kelly & Lesh, 2000). Regardless of the
multiplicity of dimensions found in curriculum design research, Martin and Solbes (2001) and
Koliopoulos and Ravanis (2000) identified three essential features, including epistemological
validity (compliance with updated epistemological and subject-matter knowledge), didactic
validity (compliance with updated educational knowledge), and feasibility (possibility of
adaptation and use in real teaching conditions). In addition, sound curriculum design must include
plans for adequate curricular management in the classroom. Features of curriculum management
include formative assessment and assessment of products (Shepard, 2001), incorporation of
students’ knowledge and appropriate contexts (Lopes, 2004), teacher mediation (Dumas-Carré &
Goffard, 1998; Moll, 2002) of the students’ learning, and effective use of conceptual tools by
students.
Formative situation is a concept that was introduced by Astolfi, Darot, Vogel, and Toussaint
(1997), and further developed by Lopes (2004). It makes explicit key aspects of a didactic
modeling intended to transform teaching objects into consolidated learning outcomes. A
formative situation must consider teacher mediation as being of paramount importance, determine
the knowledge already available to students, give students real opportunities to perform tasks and
formulate problems, allow students to learn in a progressive and sustained way, and provide
opportunities for students to use newly acquired knowledge.
Formative situation (Figure 1) links the concepts of students’ available knowledge
(Cachapuz, Praia, & Jorge, 2000), situation (e.g. Science–Technology–Society context [Lopes,
2004; see also Gil-Perez et al., 1999]), teacher mediation (Weil-Barais & Dumas-Carré, 1998),
and learning tasks (Howe, 1996). A situation is presented to students for them to explore. Students
then are invited to develop a mental and practical activity, using their available knowledge within a
predetermined time frame. The activities are thus conditioned by the learning tasks, the teacher’s
mediation and involvement of students, and the available material and conceptual resources. The
concept of a formative situation offers a powerful approach for designing and managing curricula
(Lopes, 2004; see also Branco, 2005; Cravino, 2004).
Transversal traits are characteristics that are common to several research studies,
independent of their theoretical or methodological approaches. These characteristics correspond
to emergent knowledge that is not yet necessarily explicit in the individual research reports.
However, when looking at a considerable number of published studies with practical relevance
this knowledge begins to surface. To identify the transversal traits first we chose the relevant
variables (i.e., global practical relevance, curriculum design, and formative situation). Next, we
used a software analysis tool to build clusters or groups of interrelated variables. The occurrence of
a stable cluster identifies the presence of a transversal trait.

Research Problem and Questions


The study addresses the need for articulation among research lines and between these
inquiries and classroom practice. This research–practice problem has been divided into two
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
578 LOPES ET AL.

Figure 1. Concept of formative situation (Lopes, 2004, p. 166).

components: the need for eliciting transversal traits that link individual reports and the need to
draw from existing research an improved reference framework for practitioners and researchers.
We have thus formulated three research questions to be addressed:

Q1: What methods should be used to elicit transversal traits in a corpus of research studies
conducted in formal educational contexts that have practical relevance?
Q2: Which transversal traits can be inferred from this analysis?
Q3: How can these traits embody a reference framework that informs research and practice?

Research Methods
We describe the methods used in this research, from corpus selection to data analysis. Some
specific procedures were created and improved as the research proceeded.

Phase I—Corpus Definition


This study began with the identification and location of all 374 studies published in three
journals during the years 2000 and 2001, including Science Education, International Journal of
Science Education, and Journal of Research in Science Teaching. The corpus was built by
applying to the 374 studies our selection criteria of relevance for teaching practice, namely having
global practical relevance, providing a perspective on curriculum design, and presenting
formative situations. The decision was made that the corpus selection method should avoid
false negatives—that is, the exclusion of studies potentially relevant for teaching practice. The
possibility of false positives (studies that later would be found incompatible with our criteria) was
considered of less importance, because a subsequently more detailed analysis would detect this
and would result in their rejection from further analysis. We began with 103 abstracts of studies
published in Science Education during the years 2001 and 2002. One of the investigators read
these abstracts fully and applied the criteria of relevance (relevance for teaching practice).
Independently, another investigator developed a semiautomatic method of analysis based on a
keyword system:

Journal of Research in Science Teaching


TRANSVERSAL TRAITS 579

1. The criterion of relevance was expressed in a list of dimensions of teaching practice. Each
dimension was assigned a representative set of keywords, and each dimension was coded
(1–8) by a digit (see Table 1).
2. The keywords were searched for in each abstract. The occurrence of a dimension (as
indicated by the presence of a keyword) was registered. Thus, for example, a coding
sequence 36247 means that the dimensions of relevance 3, 6, 2, 4, and 7 were found.
3. An abstract was considered as indicating a study with relevance if five or more of digits
(each representing one of the eight dimensions) were present in its coding sequence
(see Table 1).

We compared the results obtained independently by the two investigators regarding the
studies that would or would not be included in the corpus. The first comparison yielded reasonable
agreement, but showed the need for fine-tuning. All six researchers in the team discussed
the agreement issue in order to achieve a broad conceptual consensus at the following levels:

1. Clarifying the elements that must be present in an abstract to maximize the probability
that the correspondent study has relevance.
2. Expanding the set of keywords and dimensions (Table 1 is shown in its final form) and
ensuring the correct allocation within the various dimensions.
3. Rewriting the coding sequence with the digits 3 (task dimension) and 6 (mediation
dimension) at the beginning of the sequence to indicate essential dimensions in the
coding scheme.
4. Considering that a study has relevance if and only if its coding sequence has at least five
digits, starting with digits 3 and 6 (thus, the coding sequence should be of the type
36###).
5. Making sure that the keywords that lead to the allocation of codes 3 and 6 are not out of
context (e.g., the word ‘‘discussion’’ may refer to discussion in the classroom or
discussion of the research results).

With these improvements, the two methods—the full-abstract reading and the keyword
abstract search—finally yielded disagreement of less than 1%. Only one study (out of 103) was
excluded from the corpus using the keyword-search method, but was included in the full-reading
method. If transversal traits do in fact exist, we agreed, they would not fail to show up as a
consequence of such a small margin of error.
We then applied the semiautomated, keyword-search method to the remaining 271 studies
(from the two remaining journals). Starting with an initial set of 374 studies, we built a corpus
comprised of 14 studies from the IJSE, 12 from the JRST, and 9 from SE (see full list in Appendix 1).

Phase II—Analysis of Studies in the Corpus


We initially used an analysis instrument that required extensive marking of several fields in a
form. Use of this form was too dependent on the user. Consequently, we opted for a simplified
analysis instrument. We wrote questions that require an answer of ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no,’’ to make the
results as investigator-independent as possible (see Appendix 2). This analysis instrument started
with a concise characterization of the study, including bibliographic reference, abstract
transcription, and identification of the main research lines (see Cachapuz et al., 2001). The analysis
was carried out at two levels of refinement (see Appendix 2):

1. Level 0 includes three questions aligned with the three general concepts defining
relevance for teaching practice (global practical relevance, curriculum design, and
formative situation).

Journal of Research in Science Teaching


580

Table 1
Final list of keywords grouped by dimension of relevance for teaching practice (coding digits between parentheses)
Knowledge,
competences,
Available attitudes and
knowledge Learning Physical values to be Curriculum
(from students) environment Task situation Resources Mediation developed design

Journal of Research in Science Teaching


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Student Hands-on Activities Situation Resources Mediation Attitude Design;
knowledge Context Equipment Curricul(a-um)
Student Pupil Task Case-study Tool Interaction Competence
conceptions
Conceptions Student Problem Phenomen a(on) Material Communication Skill
Personal Classroom Project Museum Content Aid Student outcomes
LOPES ET AL.

understanding
Pupils Group Experimental Real life Physic Questions Student
understanding work Discussions constructing
Misunderstanding Inquiry Learning Everyday Model Dialogue Knowledge
activity Argumentation construction
Peer Modelling Software Assess(ment) Perform(ance)
Autonom(ous) Work Strategies Debate Student learn(ing)
Technology Talk Learn
Textbook
TRANSVERSAL TRAITS 581

2. Level 1 includes questions in which each of the three general concept questions are
unfolded by answering five to eight specific questions.

The specific questions (see Appendix II) further defined the dimensions that we considered
essential for a study to be relevant for teaching practice. These additional distinctions included:

 In the dimension ‘‘Global Practical Relevance’’ (P) the study must include more than two
lines of research (P-RL) and features directly related to teaching practice. These features
include: Feasibility (P-F), Methods (P-M), and/or Assessment (P-A) used in teaching;
Skills and Competencies (P-SC) and/or Values and Attitudes (P-VA) that students
develop; and developed Knowledge (P-K).
 In the dimension ‘‘Formative Situation’’ (FS) the study must include: Student Knowledge
mobilized in learning (FS-SK); Learning Environment (FS-LE); students’ Tasks (FS-T),
Physical Situations (FS-PS), and Resources (FS-R) used; modalities of Mediation (FS-
M); Knowledge Developed during learning (FS-KD); and Assessment instruments/
procedures used in mediation (FS-A).
 In the dimension ‘‘Curriculum Design’’ (CD) the study must present a perspective of
curriculum design that includes: Epistemological Validity (CD-EV) and Feasibility (CD-
F); justification of the processes and requisites for Learning (CD-L); Explicit Sequence
and articulation of activities (CD-ES); and articulation with Other Knowledge (CD-OK).

The analysis instrument was validated using a two-stage process. First, each researcher
independently applied the instrument to several studies. The results were then compared and the
categories of analysis were fine-tuned. Second, a set of eight studies were selected. Each study
was read by at least two researchers who completed the analysis instrument. The six
investigators compared the results for each study and fine-tuned the categories of analysis.
This second stage of comparison and discussion of the preliminary results obtained allowed
us to fine-tune the interpretation of key questions for each dimension. Answering ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ to
each question requires a high level of certainty and confidence. In the process we developed a
better shared understanding of the concepts involved and of the meaning of the terminology used
by each investigator when writing the research abstract. Finally, all the remaining studies were
analyzed by two researchers, working independently at first, coming together to share their
analyses, and then settling occasional emerging disagreements. A consensual agreement was
reached in all cases.

Phase III—Data Analysis


From the answers given by completing the analysis instrument for the 35 studies forming the
corpus we built a matrix with 23 variables (the total number of dimensions and categories of
analysis; see Appendix 2) and 35 cases (the number of studies in the corpus; see Appendix 3). The
data obtained were analyzed with the STATISTICA software program (StatSoft, 1997), using the
clusters analysis routine. This process allowed us to organize the observed data into meaningful
mathematical structures obtained from distances among variables and then to interpret the
structures.
Cluster analysis allocates variables to a group in such a way that each variable member of a
group is more like variables within the same group than variables outside the group (Ireson, 1999).
Cluster analysis has been used in previous research studies (Botton & Brown, 1998; Gwimbi &
Monk, 2003; Ireson, 1999; Kjærnsli & Lie, 2004; Lopes & Costa, 2007; Murtonen & Lehtinen,
2003; Spall, Barrett, Stanisstreet, Dickson, & Boyes, 2003).
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
582 LOPES ET AL.

Figure 2. Tree diagram for the 35 cases (all variables) with the identification of the clusters (see Table 2 for
variables code).

We grouped the clusters using Ward’s method, which minimizes the sum of squares of any two
clusters that can be formed at each step of the process of cluster formation. This method is regarded
as very efficient (Statsoft, 1997), even though it tends to create clusters of small size but with
strong links among the correspondent variables. For the calculation of distances between cases we
used percent disagreement [calculated by: distance (x, y) ¼ (number of xi 6¼ yi)/i]. This measure is
particularly useful when the data for the dimensions included in the analysis are categorical in
nature (Statsoft, 1997). From the cluster analysis we obtained dendograms that group variables
(see Figure 2) and can allow us to identify the clusters and see the relationship among them.
Interpreting these clusters allows us to infer and articulate the nature of the transversal traits.
This means that each cluster includes a set of variables that are closely interrelated. For example,
cluster 6 is formed by two variables that share the same value (represented by 0 or 1) in 24 different
studies and are, therefore, somehow associated with each other. This relationship must then
be interpreted.

Results and Discussion


The corpus consisted of 35 studies out of 374 research studies published in the three journals
in the years 2000 and 2001. Thus, only about 10% of the studies present evidence of practical
relevance as we have defined it (see Table 1 and related discussions). We recognize that our
method of analyses may have limitations. First, the abstracts may for better or worse at
describing the content of the studies. There may be some studies with practical relevance that our
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
TRANSVERSAL TRAITS 583

selection criteria failed to identify. In addition, some studies outside the corpus may have an
indirect relevance for practice due to their theoretical nature or focus. Regardless, we propose
that the low percentage of studies selected for the corpus (10%) deserve the attention of
researchers.

Results Obtained From the Cluster Analysis

The studies selected in the preliminary analysis (see Appendix 1) were further analyzed in a
more refined way. Performing the cluster analysis with STATISTICA software results in members
of clusters dependent on the linkage distances selected. For example, using a linkage distance of
1.2 we identified only two clusters, and using a distance of 0.1 we identified a number of clusters
similar to the number of variables, which is a meaningless result. We chose for our purposes a
linkage distance that maximized the number of clusters and, in doing so, maximized the meaning
of each cluster. This distance is about 0.5 (as shown in Figure 2), which resulted in the production
of six clusters.
We cannot establish causal relationships from the clusters in the tree diagram, but we can
establish meaningful associations among variables. On inspection of the tree diagram, we see that
there are two groups of clusters, with dimensions 1, 2, 3, on one side and 4, 5, 6 on the other. A large
separation exists between the two blocks. We may build a hierarchy of clusters by analyzing
the matrix Studies  Variables (Appendix 3) in terms of the relative density of ‘‘0’’ (meaning
that the correspondent characteristics are absent in the studies) and ‘‘1’’ (meaning that the
correspondent characteristics are present in the studies). This can also be done using the two-way
joining technique of the STATISTICA software. Using this technique, we found that cluster 1 contains
the set of variables for which almost all cases are marked ‘‘1’’ and, on the other extreme, cluster
4 groups that include variables that tagged with ‘‘0’’ in most cases. According to this criterion,
these clusters may be ordered as 1, 2, 3, and 6, 5, 4.
Testing the stability of the results. We asked whether we would we obtain the same
results (clusters) if we increased the number of studies. The point in question is whether the
small number of studies in the corpus (35) limits the findings. To address this question,
we conducted a second cluster analysis with a random sample of only 17 of the 35 studies
(about half of the number of studies in the corpus). Random selection was guaranteed by blind
raffle, picking out coded labels from a closed box. From a comparison of the tree diagrams
obtained with the two samples (17 and 35 studies) we verified the existence of the same structure—
that is, two cluster groups (see Figure 3). We also verified that clusters 1, 2, 4, and 6 appear with
almost the same composition (clusters 1 and 6 are totally coincident). From a comparative analysis
of Figure 3 (17 studies) and Figure 2 (35 studies) we can say that our method produced consistent
results.
Discussion and interpretation of the results. Transversal traits clearly emerged
from the analysis. Aspects that are less stable still subsist, but we interpret them as not
configuring (at least for the moment) transversal traits. Thus, we identified four stable clusters (see
Table 2).
Cluster 1 is formed by seven variables of the ‘‘Global Practical Relevance’’ dimension (Result
1—Table 2). These seven variables share the value 1 for the majority of the studies. This means that
the characteristics associated with the seven variables are present in most studies and are somehow
associated with each other. From this relationship we infer a transversal trait, meaning a strong
connection between the research reported in the studies and a concern with its relevance for
professional practice. This association of variables points to the importance of the articulation
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
584 LOPES ET AL.

Figure 3. Tree diagram for the 17 cases (all variables) with the identification of the clusters that reappear.

between research and practice. In a more specific way this transversal trait corresponds to two
essential features of research (see cluster 1, Result 1—Table 2), namely presenting proposals to
practitioners that are feasible and clearly show how to improve students’ knowledge, skills, and
values, and crossing two or more research lines, which is of potential interest to the practitioner as
well as the researcher.
Cluster 2 is formed by six variables from the ‘‘Formative Situation’’ dimension (Result 3—
Table 2). In this cluster, 22 studies share the same value for all cluster variables (value 1 in 15 studies;
value 0 in 7 studies). This means that the characteristics associated with the six variables are
somehow associated with each other by either their presence or absence in the studies. From this
relationship we infer a transversal trait linked to the teaching characteristics and learning
conditions, which can be interpreted in several ways. We emphasize one interpretation that is
especially useful to the practitioner, namely research studies that: present evidence about
knowledge acquired by students; describe the learning tasks students completed, the resources
used, and the mediation carried out by teacher; and explain the nature of the learning environment
(see cluster 2, Result 3—Table 2). Thus, the structural aspects of a formative situation, when
present, are all articulated. From this finding we may infer that the research concerned with
relevance for practice should not focus on partial aspects of teaching and learning but instead
should focus on structural aspects and their articulation. We emphasize that finding this articulation
(among the tasks proposed, the resources used, the mediation carried out by the teacher, and the
learning environment) in various independent studies confirms the importance of the concept of
formative situation for practitioners and researchers.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
TRANSVERSAL TRAITS 585

Table 2
Summary of main results
Stable Clusters of Variables Summary results of cluster analysis
Cluster 1
P - Global Practical relevance of the paper. Result 1 - Cluster 1, as a stable cluster (see Fig. 2
P-RL - Relevant for teaching Practice - the paper and Fig. 3), configures a transversal trait (the
involves more than two Research Lines. characteristics associated to the 7 variables are
P-F - Relevant for teaching Practice – Feasibility present in most papers).
of proposals.
P-M - Relevant for teaching Practice – Methods Result 1.1 - P-M and P-F are very closely connected
used in teaching are described. (see Fig. 4), so they configure a specific
P-SC - Relevant for teaching Practice - Skills transversal trait of result 1.
and Competences that students develop are
described.
P-VA - Relevant for teaching Practice - Values Result 2 - Cluster 1 is connected to cluster 2 (see
and Attitudes that students develop are Fig. 2 and Fig. 3), so together may configure a more
described. general transversal trait.
P-K - Relevant for teaching Practice - Knowledge
that students develop is described.

Cluster 2
FS – The paper develops and/or studies a Result 3 - Cluster 2, as a stable cluster (see Fig. 2
Formative Situation in a global sense. and Fig. 3), configures a transversal trait (the
FS-LE – Aspect of Formative Situation - The characteristics associated to the 6 variables are
paper elucidates/describes the Learning somehow associated to each other, by either their
Environment. presence or absence in the papers).
FS-T - Aspect of Formative Situation - The paper Result 3.1 - FS-T and FS-M are very closely
elucidates/describes the students’ Tasks used. connected (see Fig. 4 and Fig. 5), so configure a
FS-R - Aspect of Formative Situation - The paper specific transversal trait of result 3.
elucidates/describes the Resources used.
FS-M - Aspect of Formative Situation - The paper Result 3.2 - FS-LE and FS-R are very closely
elucidates/describes the modalities of connected (see Fig. 4 and Fig. 5), so configure a
Mediation done by the teacher. specific transversal trait of the result 3.
FS-KD - Aspect of Formative Situation - The
paper elucidates/describes the Knowledge
Developed during learning.

Cluster 4
CD - The paper presents a perspective of Result 4 - Cluster 4, as a stable cluster (see Fig. 2
Curriculum Design. and Fig. 3), configures a transversal trait (the
CD-EV - Aspect of Curriculum Design – The characteristics associated to the 4 variables are
paper discusses Epistemological validity of the absent in most papers).
curriculum proposed.
CD-F - Aspect of Curriculum Design – The Result 4.1 - CD-L and CD-F are very closely
paper discusses the Feasibility of connected (see Fig. 5), so they configure a
its proposal. specific transversal trait of the result 4.
CD-L - Aspect of Curriculum Design – The
paper justifies the necessary processes and
requisites for learning.

Cluster 6
P-A - Relevant for teaching Practice - Result 5 - Cluster 6, as a stable cluster (see Fig. 2
Assessment used in teaching is described. and Fig. 3), configures a transversal trait (the
FS-A - Aspect of Formative Situation - The paper characteristics associated to the 2 variables are
elucidates/describes how Assessment absent in most papers).
instruments/practices were used in mediation.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching


586 LOPES ET AL.

Cluster 4 is formed by four variables from the ‘‘Curriculum Design’’ dimension (Result 4—
Table 2). The four variables in this cluster share the value 0 for the majority of the studies. This
means that the characteristics associated with the four variables are absent in most studies and are
somehow associated with each other. This stable association forms a transversal trait related to
curriculum design and its relevance for practice. In general, the few studies that present a proposal
for curriculum design make the effort to show its relevance for professional practice. This
transversal trait consists of an articulation among the three curriculum dimensions (see variables
of cluster 4, Result 4—Table 2) of feasibility, features necessary for learning, and epistemological
validity. A curriculum design relevant for practitioners therefore should not include only one or
two components but all three. In fact, this transversal trait appears explicitly postulated in research
studies about curriculum design in science education (e.g., Koliopoulos & Ravanis, 2000; Martin
& Solbes, 2001).
Cluster 6 is formed by two variables related to Assessment feature (Result 5—Table 2). These
two variables share the value 0 for the majority of studies. This means that most research studies in
this cluster fail to address the role of the feature Assessment. This stable association of variables
reveals a paradoxical transversal trait, namely the independence of assessment and the learning
process. The important and influential role of assessment is well supported in the literature (e.g.,
Black, 1998; Shepard, 2001). Nevertheless, cluster 6 makes evident that research with explicit
concerns for practical relevance neither emphasizes the importance of assessment nor makes
explicit how summative assessment is related to goals and methods. We consider as an indicator of
the internal consistency of our study the fact that, as shown in Figure 2, cluster 6 lacks a link to
cluster 2, formed by variables from the ‘‘Formative Situation’’ dimension. As shown in Figure 2, if
we choose a linkage distance of greater than 1.2, a connection appears between cluster 1 and
cluster 2. This linkage configures the general transversal trait (Result 2—Table 2) that if a
formative situation (or some of its characteristics) is present, then it is almost sure that the research
is relevant for practice.
The groups of variables type FS (cluster 2) and P (cluster 1) also are connected (see Table 2
and Figure 2). A cluster analysis of this group of 15 variables results in the tree diagram in Figure 4.
Taking a linkage distance approximately equal to the value that we have been using (0.5), we
recognize clusters 1, 2, and 6 (see Table 2), which confirms the internal consistency of the method.
A new cluster appears, formed by two variables of the ‘‘Formative Situation’’ dimension (see
Result 6.1—Table 3), which were not part of any of the previous clusters. This new cluster can
be interpreted as an indicator of an important practical aspect, namely students’ knowledge is
more easily enhanced if real physical (biological, chemical, or other) contexts are used. This
interpretation supports the STS (science–technology–society) studies, which emphasize the role
of contextualized situations in learning.
An examination of the a smaller linkage distance in Figure 4 (see dotted circles) reveals three
subclusters, which are identified in Table 2 as Result 1.1, Result 3.1, and Result 3.2. Result 3.1
suggests ways to improve the teacher’s role as mediator of students’ learning. Mediation is more
effective if instruction begins with students performing rather than beginning with a conversation
between the teacher and students that lacks any common experiential referent for teachers and
students. Results 1.1 and 3.2 present connections among variables that may seem obvious. The
feasibility of a didactic research study is closely related to the methods used, and the resources are
related to the learning environment. The emergence of these obvious results offers additional
support for the internal consistency of the results because the analytic procedures produced both
anticipated results as well as new findings.
We then evaluated the tree diagram obtained with the Formative Situation (FS) and
Curriculum Design (CD) variables (Figure 5).
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
TRANSVERSAL TRAITS 587

Figure 4. Tree diagram for the 35 cases considering only the variables of type P and FS.

Figure 5. Tree diagram for the 35 cases considering only the variables type FS and CD.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching


588 LOPES ET AL.

Three clusters appear that were identified and interpreted previously, namely clusters 2, 3, and
4 (see Figure 2). At a finer level, Results 3.1 and 3.2 also reappear. The appearance of these clusters
further confirms the internal consistency of the study. A new result (Result 6.2—Table 3) emerges
that complements Result 6.1 (Table 3). Result 6.2 identifies the conditions necessary to enhance
students’ knowledge, namely the use of physical situations and/or the incorporation of knowledge
of other subjects in the school curriculum.
There are clusters that maintain their stability in two additional analyses, specifically an
analysis of all the variables for 17 of 35 cases and an analysis of restricted groups of variables for
all 35 cases. These clusters are interpreted as transversal traits—see Results 1–5 in Table 2.
Cluster 5 reveals instability. From a fine and partial analysis, two clusters are identified that point
to possible transversal traits, specifically Results 6.1 and 6.2 in Table 3. These are compatible but
not coincident with Result 6.3 (see Figure 2 and Table 3). Further analyses may detect complementary
associations. There are stable associations among variables that occur inside clusters (Results 1.1, 3.1,
3.2, and 4.1 in Table 2) that configure more specific transversal traits, which are compatible with the
most general ones identified.

Conclusions and Implications


The findings, contributions, and implications are presented and examined by returning
to the research questions (questions about methods, transversal traits, and reference
framework).

Table 3
Summary of results to explore in future researches
Other Possible Clusters of Variables Summary results of cluster analysis
FS-SK - Aspect of Formative Situation - The paper Result 6.1 - It is a possible transversal trait (to
elucidates/describes Student Knowledge explore in other researches) (see Fig. 4).
mobilized in learning.
FS-PS - Aspect of Formative Situation - The paper
elucidates/describes the Physical Situations used.
FS-SK - Aspect of Formative Situation - The paper Result 6.2 - It is a possible transversal trait (to
elucidates/describes Student Knowledge explore in other researches) (see Fig. 5).
mobilized in learning.
CD-OK - Aspect of Curriculum Design – The paper
discusses the articulation with Other Knowledge
mobilized within classroom.
CD-FS - Aspect of Curriculum Design – The paper Result 6.3 - It is a possible transversal trait (to
discusses and makes explicit the sequence and explore in other researches) (see cluster 5
articulation of teaching activities or Formative in Fig. 2).
Situations.
CD-OK - Aspect of Curriculum Design – The
paper discusses the articulation with Other
Knowledge mobilized within classroom.
FS-SK - Aspect of Formative Situation - The paper
elucidates/describes Student Knowledge
mobilized in learning.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching


TRANSVERSAL TRAITS 589

Methods Used in This Study


This study utilized a methodology that is somewhat complex. It was not determined a priori,
but was built and refined in a systematic manner to allow us to identify transversal traits. The
methods implemented were useful, consistent, and emphasized five strengths:

1. The keywords used to select the studies to form the corpus were accurate and effective.
2. The analysis instrument was adequate and functionally operative (Appendix 2) and
allowed us to characterize the 35 studies in the corpus, despite the differences in framework
and perspective that existed among them.
3. The cluster analysis method had heuristic power and allowed us to identify groups of
variables and to use these groups to make visible features common to the different studies
as well as their importance for practice.
4. The analysis withstood tests of internal validation, in particular the reanalysis of 17 of
35 studies and of all and only a subset of the variables. These tests corroborated the stability
and consistency of the clusters, thereby strengthening the claim that interpretations and
inferences were grounded in solid analytic methods.
5. It was possible to identify and characterize transversal traits among studies with different
theoretical orientations and research lines.

We consider the methods utilized in the study to be a contribution to meta-interpretative


studies of the same nature as our own but with a different scope, as well as to meta-interpretative
studies of a different nature and scope.

Inferred Transversal Traits


The use of the concepts ‘‘global practical relevance’’ and ‘‘formative situation’’ allowed us to
evidence results that we consider more useful to the practitioners. It was possible to infer
theoretically grounded transversal traits and to consider them as structuring principles for science
education researchers who are concerned with practical relevance.
Structuring principle concerning the general characteristics of the studies with relevance for
practice. The studies with relevance for practice tend to have holistic approaches to teaching and/
or learning. They construct theoretical frameworks starting from diversified sources and they tend
to cross more than one research line. In addition, these studies: elucidate the teaching methods
used to develop students’ knowledge, skills, and competencies; are feasible; describe learning
environments, contexts, and methods; and elucidate the knowledge students acquired and the
processes used to achieve them. Studies with relevance for practice can also be centered in
curriculum design, incorporating features such as theoretical foundation, feasibility, processes
and necessary requirements, and discussion of epistemological validity. Studies with practical
relevance have a multiplicity of grounding dimensions in epistemology and science education
research and practice.
Structuring principle concerning conditions for the development of students’ knowledge. The
studies that seek to develop students’ knowledge present consistent relationships among ‘‘tasks’’
presented to the students, ‘‘resources used’’ in the completion of the tasks, ‘‘mediation’’ by the
teacher, and ‘‘learning environment.’’ Students’ acquisition of knowledge is related to their activity
and is promoted by the task and information supplied by the teacher. The teacher’s mediation needs a
reference experience common to both teacher and students and activities that students engage in
during instruction seem to serve well as ‘‘common experience.’’ The planning of such tasks must
include resources made available to students, because these resources condition the learning
environment. In the results obtained, it is not clear how students’ knowledge is mobilized, but
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
590 LOPES ET AL.

indicators point to the use physical situations (chemical, biological, STS, or other) and the
activation of other types of knowledge (CD-OK) in the design of curriculum.
Structuring principle concerning the relationship between assessment and learning. Our
study shows that most studies separate assessment from the learning process, even though this
separation should not occur in practice. Research literature (e.g., Black, 1998; Shepard, 2001) has
recommended the use of assessment to improve students’ learning. Assessment should be another
structural principle for developing students’ knowledge. A valuable direction for future studies
with relevance for practice is to articulate assessment with tasks, resources, and teacher mediation.

Theoretical Model for Teaching Practice


The reference theoretical model that results from this study has a twofold purpose, namely to
guide teachers in finding research that is important for their practice and to guide research in ways
that can strengthen connections between research and students’ learning.
Reference framework for teachers and teacher training. Our study has revealed that research
important for practice has common features. These features include making explicit the
knowledge students gain, describing the learning environments in the classroom (mediation,
resources, social contexts of concepts, contexts for learning the concepts, etc.), focusing on tasks
and/or curriculum design, identifying requirements for learning success and constraints to
learning, and focusing clearly on learning in a classroom context. Making these features of
research explicit may help teachers identify research of potential importance for their practice.
This study has provided implications for practitioners regarding curricular innovation and the
construction of didactical knowledge. We have shown that:

 It is crucial to articulate the nature of the learning task, the conceptual field, students’ prior
knowledge, the competencies and knowledge to be developed, and guides to managing
the learning tasks.
 It is crucial to match the resources available in the classroom with the demands of the
learning tasks, but it is equally important to explore new resources and new learning tasks.
 It is imperative that teachers mediate students’ activities and learning. In addition,
teachers should provide different forms of mediation for different students, depending on
their knowledge and the teaching context.

The findings of our study offer implications for initial and in-service teacher training. They
provide a framework for deciding which dimensions of professional development need to be given
high priority.
Reference framework for research. Research in science education intended to influence
practice tends to be holistic, both in theoretical and methodological orientation. Usually, these
research studies are framed from a multidimensional theoretical perspective and describe in detail
the operant processes and contexts. Typically, research studies characterize states rather than
variables and identify tendencies rather than relationships. They often raise epistemological concerns
that must be considered, as well as challenge the researcher to develop reliable evaluation tools (not
necessarily instruments designed to control variables). Our results also show that learning tasks
and the teachers’ mediation of these tasks play a key role in science education research designed to
influence teacher practice. As a general theoretical framework, we propose that research should be
structured along multidisciplinary and multidimensional lines. These lines should include the
learning tasks provided for students, teachers’ mediation of these tasks, and development of
students’ knowledge and competencies.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
TRANSVERSAL TRAITS 591

Implications of This Study


Results of our study have implications for science education research and practice. We
believe that other researchers may use the method developed for this study if they intend to do a
meta-interpretative study in any domain of classroom teaching and learning. In addition, this study
has presented additional support for an existing line of inquiry (see, e.g., Kempa, 2002; Ratcliffe
et al., 2004; Tsaparlis, 2003, 2004) whose purpose is the articulation of research with practice. In
addition, the transversal traits proposed herein help to build and consolidate knowledge in science
education theory and practice. As a result of this study we have found evidence of the need for
further studies to clarify and develop these transversal traits and identify additional ones. One
paradoxical finding needs further study, namely the trait regarding the relationship between
assessment and learning.
Three main findings offer implications for science teachers, including the transversal traits,
the method used to select studies of relevance for practice, and an integrated framework for
science teachers and educators. The existence of transversal traits provides compelling evidence
for teachers to integrate several dimensions into their practice. First, when they design curriculum
and curriculum management plans there should be clear connections among the tasks provided to
students, the teachers’ mediation of the learning tasks, and the resources made available for
learning. In addition, studies relevant for practice have specific characteristics, such as a holistic
approach, more than one research line, and clear explanations of the learning context and
environment. Next, teachers should frame their curriculum designs in terms of feasibility and
epistemological and didactical validity, because learning occurs in a complex and changing social
context in which attitudes, values, and ideas are formed and re-formed by individuals (Schibeci &
Lee, 2003). Moreover, in their teaching practice, teachers should not separate assessment and
learning. Science teaching should mirror the transversal traits that result from science education
research, taking into account that the knowledge, skills, and values to which students are exposed
need to be wide ranging and empowering (Alsop, Benzce, & Pedretti, 2005). Although learners are
the centerpiece of the learning process, the teacher is the key and of paramount importance for
successful learning. An additional implication for practice is for teachers to make use of the
keywords presented in Table 1 to locate studies in the literature with relevance to their practice.
In conclusion, the identification of transversal traits in science education research is important
for the design of pre-service and in-service programs for science teachers and educators and for
new directions in research in science education.

Notes
1
Our study is part of a field frequently called ‘‘Didactics of Science’’ and its linguistic
correspondents in German, Danish, Spanish, French, Dutch, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, and
Swedish (Sjøberg, 1996). In English, ‘‘didactic/didactics’’ frequently has a more restricted and even,
sometimes, pejorative meaning; in this study, that is not the intended meaning and we more often use
the designation ‘‘science education’’ instead, to facilitate a better understanding in English.
2
Evans (2002) has defined pragmatization of research as ‘‘(. . .) a planned process involving
analysis, presentation and dissemination that is directed at transforming research findings into
viable, specific ideas and recommendations for policy and practice’’ (p. 202).

The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions and the
kind and competent support of Professor Frank Crawley in the language revision of the
manuscript.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching


592 LOPES ET AL.

Appendix 1: List of Studies in the Corpus

International Journal of Science Education (14 of 149):


Buncick MC; Betts PG; Horgan DD (2001). Using demonstrations as a contextual road map:
enhancing course continuity and promoting active engagement in introductory college physics.
International Journal of Science Education, 23(12), 1237–1255.
Rodrigues S; Thompson I (2001). Cohesion in science lesson discourse: Clarity, relevance
and sufficient information. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 929–940.
Yip DY (2001). Promoting the development of a conceptual change model of science
instruction in prospective secondary biology teachers. International Journal of Science
Education, 23(7), 755–770.
Bennett J; Kennedy D (2001). Practical work at the upper high school level: The evaluation of
a new model of assessment. International Journal of Science Education, 23(1), 97–110.
Stoddart T; Abrams R; Gasper E; Canaday D (2000). Concept maps as assessment in science
inquiry learning—a report of methodology. International Journal of Science Education, 22(12),
1221–1246.
Buckley BC (2000). Interactive multimedia and model-based learning in biology.
International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 895–935.
Davis EA; Linn MC (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for
reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819–837.
Linn MC (2000). Designing the Knowledge Integration Environment. International Journal
of Science Education, 22(8), 781–796.
Bell P; Linn MC (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: designing for learning
from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–817.
Hoadley CM; Linn MC (2000). Teaching science through online, peer discussions: SpeakEasy in
the Knowledge Integration Environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 839–857.
Tunnicliffe SD (2000). Conversations of family and primary school groups at robotic
dinosaur exhibits in a museum: What do they talk about? International Journal of Science
Education, 22(7), 739–754.
Fouzder NB; Markwick AFW (2000). Self-perception, individual learning style and
academic achievement by a pair of bilingual twins in a secondary school. International Journal of
Science Education, 22(6), 583–601.
Simonneaux L (2000). A study of pupils’ conceptions and reasoning in connection with
’microbes’, as a contribution to research in biotechnology education. International Journal of
Science Education, 22(6), 619–644.
Tsai CC (2000). Enhancing science instruction: the use of ’conflict maps.’ International
Journal of Science Education, 22(3), 285–302.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching (12 of 131):


Bouillion LM; Gomez LM (2001). Connecting school and community with science learning:
Real world problems and school-community partnerships as contextual scaffolds. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 878–898.
Cavallo AML; Laubach TA (2001). Students’science perceptions and enrollment decisions in
differing learning cycle classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(9), 1029–1062.
Seiler G; Tobin K; Sokolic J (2001). Design, technology, and science: Sites for learning,
resistance, and social reproduction in urban schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
38(7), 746–767.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
TRANSVERSAL TRAITS 593

Crismond D (2001). Learning and using science ideas when doing investigate-and-redesign
tasks: A study of naive, novice, and expert designers doing constrained and scaffolded design
work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 791–820.
Warren B; Ballenger C; Ogonowski M; Rosebery AS; Hudicourt-Barnes J (2001). Rethinking
diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense-making. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 38(5), 529–552.
Moje EB; Collazo T; Carrillo R; Marx RW (2001). ’’Maestro, what is ’quality’?‘‘: Language,
literacy, and discourse in project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(4),
469–498.
Windschitl M (2001). The diffusion and appropriation of ideas in the science classroom:
Developing a taxonomy of events occurring between groups of learners. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 38(1), 17–42.
Hart C; Mulhall P; Berry A; Loughran J; Gunstone R (2000). What is the purpose of this
experiment? Or can student s learn something from doing experiments? Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 37(7), 655–675.
Costa J; Caldeira H; Gallastegui JR; Otero J (2000). An analysis of question asking on
scientific texts explaining natural phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6),
602–614.
Mistler-Jackson M; Songer NB (2000). Student motivation and Internet technology:
Are students empowered to learn science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 459–
479.
Chin C; Brown DE (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface
approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 109–138.
Chinn PWU; Hilgers TL (2000). From corrector to collaborator: The range of instructor roles
in writing-based natural and applied science classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
37(1), 3–25.

Science Education (9 of 94):


Koch A (2001). Training in metacognition and comprehension of physics texts. Science
Education, 85(6), 758–768.
Polman JL; Pea RD (2001). Transformative communication as a cultural tool for guiding
inquiry science. Science Education, 85(3), 223–238.
Hayes MT; Deyhle D (2001). Constructing difference: A comparative study of elementary
science curriculum differentiation. Science Education, 85(3), 239–262.
Haussler P; Hoffmann L (2000). A curricular frame for physics education: Development,
comparison with students’ interests, and impact on students’ achievement end self-concept.
Science Education, 84(6), 689–705.
Jimenez-Aleixandre MP; Rodriguez AB; Duschl RA (2000). ’’Doing the lesson‘‘ or ’’doing
science‘‘: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.
Rivard LP; Straw SB (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An
exploratory study. Science Education, 84(5), 566–593.
Etkina E (2000). Weekly reports: A two-way feedback tool. Science Education, 84(5), 594–
605.
Blank LM (2000). A metacognitive learning cycle: A better warranty for student
understanding? Science Education, 84(4), 486–506.
Dori YJ; Tal RT (2000). Formal and informal collaborative projects: Engaging in industry
with environmental awareness. Science Education, 84(1), 95–113.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
594 LOPES ET AL.

Appendix 2: Instrument of Analysis

I. Brief characterization of the paper


I.1 - Identification
Author Year Title Journal Vol (Nº) pages

I.2 –Abstract transcription

I.3 – Research lines

II. Analysis: Level 0


Aspects to analyze Yes or No
II.1 Is it relevant for practice?
The study crosses more than 2 research lines and clarifies the theoretical or empirical aspects that are
feasible in Science classroom environments.
Scale of analysis: meso and/or micro
II.2 Does it develop and/or study a formative situation?
The study is centered in tasks proposed to (or developed by) students and in especially careful teacher
mediation, in intentional learning environments which make available the resources, physical situations and
that mobilize the students’ knowledge, leading them to levels of higher development.
Scale of analysis: meso and/or micro
II.3 Does it present a perspective of curriculum design?
The study proposes/studies (in a global or partial perspective) sets of contents, activities, resources,
formative situations and/or methods that are meant to develop competences and/or knowledge at a scale of
months.
Scale of analysis: meso

III. Analysis: Level 1


III.1 Is it relevant for practice?
Aspects to analyse Yes or No
III.1.1 Research lines
Does the study cross more than 2 research lines?
III.1.2 Knowledge (about subject matter)
Does the study show/elucidate ways to improve/develop students’ knowledge?
III.1.3 Values and attitudes
Does the study show/elucidate ways to develop students’ values and attitudes?
III.1.4 Skills and competences
Does the study show/elucidate ways to develop students’ skills/competences?
III.1.5 Assessment
Does the study show/elucidate the way in which assessments instruments and/or practices develop
students’ knowledge?
III.1.6 Methods
Does the study show/elucidate ways to use Science teaching methods that develop students’ knowledge?
III.1.7 Feasibility
Does the study present theoretical or empirical proposals that may be used by a teacher without an
exceptional increase in effort or that does not require mastering a particular theoretical tool?

III.2 Develops/studies a formative situation?


Aspects to analyse Yes or No
III.2.1 Mobilization of students’ knowledge
Does the study show/elucidate ways in which knowledge, skills and competences, values and attitudes
previously developed by students (in the context of their lives and/or experiences or in school context) are
mobilized for current learning activities?
III.2.2 Learning environment

Journal of Research in Science Teaching


TRANSVERSAL TRAITS 595

Does the study show/elucidate the environment in which the learning takes place, namely the types of
activities, work organization and the degree of freedom granted to students?
III.2.3 Tasks
Does the study describe the tasks performed by students and elucidate the role these activities play in the
current learning?
III.2.4 Physical situations
Does the study describe the physical situations to which the tasks performed are reported, or other teaching
activities, and does it elucidate the role they play in the current learning?
III.2.5 Resources
Does the study describe the resources (theoretical or material) made available to the students, in which way
they were used and does it indicate their role in the current learning?
III.2.6 Mediation
Does the study describe and elucidate the interaction teacher-students (and student-student), the negotiation
of meanings, the help given, the questions asked to deepen knowledge, the chirurgical synthesis and does it
indicate their role in the current learning situation?
III.2.7 Knowledge developed
Does the study show/elucidate the knowledge and/or skills and competences and/or values and attitudes
that were developed with the proposed teaching activities?
III.2.8 Assessment
The study describes and elucidates assessment instruments and/or practices, indicating their role in the
forms of mediation used in the current learning situation?

III.3 Does the study present a perspective of curriculum design?


Aspects to analyze Yes or No
III.3.1 Epistemological validity
Does the study ground, from an epistemological point of view, the curriculum design (global or partial)?
III.3.2 Feasibility
Does the study elucidate in which way the curriculum design (global or partial) does not require
exceptional resources or mastering particular theoretical tools?
III.3.3 Learning
Does the study ground and justify, based in science education knowledge, the learning processes and
requisites necessary to this curriculum design?
III.3.4 Teaching activities or formative situations
Does the study explicit and elucidate the sequence and articulation of the curriculum design’s teaching
activities, learning activities or formative situations?
III.3.5 Articulation with other knowledge
Does the study explicit and elucidate the way to articulate the disciplinary knowledge with other
knowledge, disciplinary or transverse, in particular with knowledge of STS-E (Science-Technology-Society-
Environmental) contexts?

Journal of Research in Science Teaching


596
Appendix 3: Matrix Studies  Variables (1—presence; 0—absence)

P FS CD P-RL P-K P-VA P-SC P-A P-M P-F FS-SK FS-LE FS-T FS-PS FS-R FS-M FS-DK FS-A CD-EV CD-F CD-L CD-FS CD-OK
JRST-Seiler et 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
IJSE-Tunnicliffe 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
SE-Hayes et 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
JRST-Hart et 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1
IJSE-Bennett et 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
JRST-Chin et 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
SE-Dori et 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
JRST-Warren et 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1
IJSE-Bell et 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1
IJSE-Davis et 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1
SE-Polman et 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1

Journal of Research in Science Teaching


IJSE-Linn 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
SE-Haussler et 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1
SE-Etkina 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
IJSE-Hoadley et 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
JRST-Crismond 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1
SE-Rivard et 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1
SE-Jimenez et 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
JRST-Moje et 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1
JRST-Costa et 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
JRST-Windschild 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
LOPES ET AL.

JRST-Chinn 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1
SE-Blank 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1
JRST-Cavallo et 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1
JRST-Mistler et 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1
JRST-Bouillion et 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1
SE-Koch 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0
IJSE-Fouzder et 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1
IJSE-Simoneaux 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
IJSE-Rodrigues 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1
IJSE-Buncick et 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0
IJSE-Stodart et 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IJSE-Yip 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
IJSE-Tsai 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1
IJSE-Buckley 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1
TRANSVERSAL TRAITS 597

References
Alsop, S., Benzce, L., & Pedretti, E. (2005). Analysing exemplary science teaching:
Theoretical lenses and a spectrum of possibilities for practice. London: Open University Press.
Adúriz-Bravo, A., & Izquierdo, M. (2002). Acerca de la didáctica de las ciencias
como disciplina autónoma [About science education as an autonomous discipline]. Revista
Electrónica de Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 1 (3). Retrieved June 14, 2006, from http:/ /
www.saum.uvigo.es/reec.
Adúriz-Bravo, A., Duschl, R., & Izquierdo, M. (2003). Science Curriculum development as a
technology based on didactical knowledge/El desarrollo curricular en ciencias como una
tecnologı́a baseada en el conociniento didáctico. Journal of Science Education/Revista de
Educación em Ciencias, 4, 64–69.
Astolfi, J.-P., Darot, E., Vogel, Y., & Toussaint, J. (1997). Pratiques de Formation en
Didactique des Sciences [Teacher Education in Science Education]. Paris: De Boeck & Larcier.
Bennett, J. (2003). Teaching and learning science. A guide to recent research and its
application. London: Continuum.
Black, P. (1998). Assessment by teachers and the improvement of students’ learning. In B.J.
Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.). International handbook of science education (pp. 811–822).
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Botton, C., & Brown, C. (1998). The reliability of some VOSTS items when used with preservice
secondary science teachers in England. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 53–71.
Branco, J. (2005). Propriedades e Aplicaçes da Luz: Concepção de um currı́culo didáctica e
epistemologicamente fundamentado e sua avaliação [Properties and applications of light: Design
and evaluation of a curriculum didactically and epistemologically grounded]. Unpublished
master’s thesis, Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal.
Cachapuz, A., Praia, J., & Jorge, M. (2000). Perspectivas de Ensino das Ciências
[Perspectives in science teaching]. Porto: Centro de Estudos de Educação em Ciência.
Cachapuz, A., Praia, J., Gil-Perez, D., Carrascosa, J., & Martinez-Terrades, F. (2001). A
emergência da didáctica das ciências como campo especı́fico de conhecimento [The emergence of
science education as a specific field of knowledge]. Revista Portuguesa de Educação.
Universidade do Minho, 14, 155–195.
Costa, N. (2003). A Investigação Educacional e o seu Impacto(e) nas Práticas Educativas: o
caso da investigação em Didáctica das Ciências [Education research and its impact in educational
practices: The case of Science Education Research]. Unpublished manuscript, Universidade de
Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal.
Costa, N., Marques, L., & Kempa, R. (2000). Science teachers’ awareness of findings from
education research. Research in Science & Technological Education, 18, 37–44.
Costa, N., Praia, J., & Marques, L. (1999). Educação em Ciências: binómio Investigação-
Formação. Uma experiência de investigadores portugueses [Science Education: Research–
teacher education binomial. An experience of Portuguese researchers]. In C. Linhares & I.
Fazenda & V. Trindade (Eds.), Os lugares dos Sujeitos na Pesquisa Educacional (pp. 305–323).
Campo Grande, Brazil: Editora UFMS.
Cravino, J.P. (2004). Ensino da Fı́sica Geral nas Universidades Públicas Portuguesas e sua
Relação com o Insucesso Escolar—Caracterização do Problema e Desenho, Implementação e
Avaliação de uma Intervenção Didáctica [Teaching introductory physics in Portuguese public
universities and academic failure—characterization of the problem and design, implementation
and evaluation of a didactical intervention]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universidade de
Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
598 LOPES ET AL.

Dumas-Carré, A., & Goffard, M. (1998). Objectivation des pratiques de tutelle d’un
enseignant au cour des séances de résolution de problèmes en Physique [Objectivation of
mediation practices during physics problem solving sessions]. In A. Dumas-Carré & A. Weil-
Barais (Eds.), Tutelle et Médiation dans l’éducation scientifique. Bern: Peter Lang.
Evans, L. (2002). Reflective practice in educational research: Developing advanced skills.
London: Continuum.
Gilbert, J. (2002). Science education and research. In S. Arons & R. Boohan (Eds.), Teaching
science in secondary schools (pp. 217–222). London: Routledge Falmer.
Gil-Perez, D., Furió-Mas, C., Valdés, P., Salinas, J., Martinez-Torregrosa, J., Guisáosla, J.,
González, E., Dumas-Carré, A., Goffard, M., & Pessoa de Carvalho, A. (1999). Tiene sentido
seguir distinguiendo entre aprendizaje de conceptos, resolución de problemas de lápiz y papel y
realización de prácticas de laboratorio? [Does it make sense to go on making a distinction among
conceptual learning, pencil and paper problem solving and laboratory practical work?].
Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 17, 311–320.
Gwimbi, E.M., & Monk, M. (2003). Study of classroom practice and classroom contexts
amongst senior high school biology teachers in Harare, Zimbabwe. Science Education, 87, 207–
223.
Hammersley, M. (2002). Educational research, policymaking and practice. London: Sage.
Howe, A.C. (1996). Development of science concepts within a Vygotskian framework.
Science Education, 80, 35–51.
Ireson, G. (1999). A multivariate analysis of undergraduate physics students’ conceptions of
quantum phenomena. European Journal of Physics, 20, 193–199.
Kelly, A., & Lesh, R. (2000). Handbook of research design in mathematics and science
education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kempa, R. (1992). Research in chemical education: Its role and potential. In chemistry for
science teachers (pp. 45–67). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
Kempa, R. (2002). Research and research utilisation in chemical education. Chemistry
Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 3, 327–343.
Kjærnsli, M., & Lie, S. (2004). PISA and scientific literacy: Similarities and differences
between the Nordic countries. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 48, 271–286.
Koliopoulos, D., & Ravanis, K. (2000). Élaboration et évaluation du contenu conceptuel d’un
curriculum constructiviste concernant l’approche énergétique des phénomènes mécaniques
[Elaboration and evaluation of the conceptual content of a constructivist curriculum about an
energy approach of mechanic phenomena]. Didaskalia, 16, 33–56.
Linn, M. (1987). Establishing a research for science education: Challenges, trends and
recommendations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 191–216.
Lopes, J.B. (2004). Aprender e Ensinar Fı́sica [Learning and teaching physics]. Lisboa:
Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian.
Lopes, J.B., & Costa, N. (2007). The evaluation of modelling competences: Difficulties
and potentials for the learning of the sciences. International Journal of Science Education, 29,
811–851.
Martin, J., & Solbes, J. (2001). Diseño y Evaluatión de una propuesta para la Enseñanza del
concepto de campo en Fisica [Design and evaluation of a proposal for teaching the concept of field
in physics]. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 19, 393–403.
Martinez-Terrades, F. (1998). La didactica de las ciencias como campo especı́fico de
conocimientos. Génesis, estado actual y perspectivas [Science Education as specific field of
knowledge. Genesis, state of the art and perspectives]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Universitat de València, Valencia, Spain.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
TRANSVERSAL TRAITS 599

Moll, L. (2002). Through the mediation of others: Vygotskian research on teaching. In V.


Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 111–132). Washington, DC:
American Educational Research Association.
Murtonen, M., & Lehtinen, E. (2003). Difficulties experienced by education and sociology
students in quantitative methods courses. Studies in Higher Education, 28, 171–185.
Ratcliffe, M., Bartholomew, H., Hammes, V., Hind, A., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Osborne, J.
(2004). Science education practitioners’ views of research and its influence on their practice. York,
UK: University of York.
Roldão, M.C. (1999). Gestão Curricular—Fundamentos e Práticas [Curriculum Manage-
ment—Theory and Practice]. Lisboa: Ministério da Educação.
Schibeci, R., & Lee, L. (2003). Portrayals of science and scientists and ‘science for
citizenship.’ Research in Science and Technological Education, 21, 177–192.
Shepard, L. (2001). The role of classroom assessment in teaching and learning. In V.
Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 1066–1101). Washington, DC:
American Educational Research Association.
Silva, A.A. (1999). Didáctica da Fı́sica [Physics Education]. Porto: Asa.
Sjøberg, S. (1996). Science Education Research in Europe: some reflections for the future
Association. In G. Welford & J. Osborne & P. Scott (Eds.), Research in science education research
in Europe: Current issues and themes (pp. 399–404). London: Falmer Press.
Spall, K., Barrett, S., Stanisstreet, M., Dickson, D., & Boyes, E. (2003). Undergraduates’
views about biology and physics. Research in Science & Technological Education, 21, 193–208.
StatSoft, Inc. (1997). STATISTICA for Windows, version 5.1. Tulsa, OK: StatSoft, Inc.
Tsaparlis, G. (2003). Globalisation in chemistry education. Research and practice. Chemistry
Education: Research and Practice, 4, 3–10.
Tsaparlis, G. (2004). Has educational research made any difference to chemistry teaching?
Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 5, 3–4.
UDC/Unidad de Didáctica de las Ciencias da Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona. (2003).
Conectar la investigación y la acción: El reto de la enseñanza de las ciencias [Connecting research
and practice: The challenge of teaching science]. Alambique, 34, 17–29.
Weil-Barais, A., & Dumas-Carré, A. (1998). Les Interactions Didactiques, Tutelles et/ou
Médiation [The didactic interactions, monitoring and/or mediation]. In A. Dumas-Carré & A.
Weil-Barais (Eds.), Tutelle et Médiation dans l’ducation Scientifique. Bern: Peter Lang.
White, R. (2002). The revolution in research on science teaching. In V. Richardson (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 457–471). Washington, DC: American
Educational Research Association.
Yager, R. (1984). Defining the discipline of science education. Science Education, 68, 35–37.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

You might also like