There is an Evidence Crisis in Science Educational Policy

There is a considerable gap between many of the findings from educational psychology research and educational practice. This gap is especially notable in the field of science education. In this article, the implications of three categories of research and their findings for science educational polic...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Educational psychology review 2022-06, Vol.34 (2), p.1157-1176
Hauptverfasser: Zhang, Lin, Kirschner, Paul A., Cobern, William W., Sweller, John
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1176
container_issue 2
container_start_page 1157
container_title Educational psychology review
container_volume 34
creator Zhang, Lin
Kirschner, Paul A.
Cobern, William W.
Sweller, John
description There is a considerable gap between many of the findings from educational psychology research and educational practice. This gap is especially notable in the field of science education. In this article, the implications of three categories of research and their findings for science educational policy in the USA and other jurisdictions were reviewed. We indicate that a particular category of research that we call “Program-Based Studies,” has dominated the formulation of educational standards while a large number of critical findings from randomized, controlled studies and correlational studies that overwhelmingly show minimal support for the suggested policy have been marked as irrelevant and excluded. The current blanket-emphasis on program-based studies at the expense of the other types of research is misplaced. Educational standards should represent a balanced view of the available data including findings from controlled and correlational studies. Finally, we indicate how these different forms of research might inform each other and provide coherent and consistent implications for educational procedures.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s10648-021-09646-1
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2659825756</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A706506921</galeid><ericid>EJ1334673</ericid><sourcerecordid>A706506921</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-cc8eececaaed36ec580e65a78c51a58e6546711c485fa9825d6048e4d91067cc3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kFtLw0AQhRdRsFb_gCAEfE7dzd6Sx1LijYKCFfq2LJNJ3ZImdTcV-u_dNqJvsg87nDPfMHMIuWZ0wijVd4FRJfKUZiylhRIqZSdkxKTmKedqeRprKmiqM7U8JxchrCmlhRZ8RIrFB3pMXEhsm5RfrsIWMJl5F6Lk2uQN3FEpqx3Y3nWtbZLXrnGwvyRntW0CXv38Y_J-Xy5mj-n85eFpNp2nIDLRpwA5IiBYixVXCDKnqKTVOUhmZR5roTRjIHJZ2yLPZKWoyFFURTxJA_AxuR3mbn33ucPQm3W383GPYDIlD4SWKnZNhq6VbdC4tu56byG-CjcOuhZrF_WppkpSVWQsAtkAgO9C8FibrXcb6_eGUXPI1AyZmpipOWZqDtDNAKF38AuUz4zzeAWPPh_8EL12hf5v13-mfgPRJIFg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2659825756</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>There is an Evidence Crisis in Science Educational Policy</title><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><source>EBSCOhost Education Source</source><creator>Zhang, Lin ; Kirschner, Paul A. ; Cobern, William W. ; Sweller, John</creator><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Lin ; Kirschner, Paul A. ; Cobern, William W. ; Sweller, John</creatorcontrib><description>There is a considerable gap between many of the findings from educational psychology research and educational practice. This gap is especially notable in the field of science education. In this article, the implications of three categories of research and their findings for science educational policy in the USA and other jurisdictions were reviewed. We indicate that a particular category of research that we call “Program-Based Studies,” has dominated the formulation of educational standards while a large number of critical findings from randomized, controlled studies and correlational studies that overwhelmingly show minimal support for the suggested policy have been marked as irrelevant and excluded. The current blanket-emphasis on program-based studies at the expense of the other types of research is misplaced. Educational standards should represent a balanced view of the available data including findings from controlled and correlational studies. Finally, we indicate how these different forms of research might inform each other and provide coherent and consistent implications for educational procedures.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1040-726X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-336X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10648-021-09646-1</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Academic standards ; Child and School Psychology ; Commentary ; Correlation ; Correlational studies ; Education ; Education policy ; Educational Policy ; Educational Practices ; Educational Psychology ; Evidence ; Learning and Instruction ; Methods ; Program Effectiveness ; Psychological research ; Randomized Controlled Trials ; Science Education ; Sciences education</subject><ispartof>Educational psychology review, 2022-06, Vol.34 (2), p.1157-1176</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2023. corrected publication 2024</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2022 Springer</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2023. corrected publication 2024. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-cc8eececaaed36ec580e65a78c51a58e6546711c485fa9825d6048e4d91067cc3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-cc8eececaaed36ec580e65a78c51a58e6546711c485fa9825d6048e4d91067cc3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8421-879X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10648-021-09646-1$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10648-021-09646-1$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ1334673$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Lin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kirschner, Paul A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cobern, William W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sweller, John</creatorcontrib><title>There is an Evidence Crisis in Science Educational Policy</title><title>Educational psychology review</title><addtitle>Educ Psychol Rev</addtitle><description>There is a considerable gap between many of the findings from educational psychology research and educational practice. This gap is especially notable in the field of science education. In this article, the implications of three categories of research and their findings for science educational policy in the USA and other jurisdictions were reviewed. We indicate that a particular category of research that we call “Program-Based Studies,” has dominated the formulation of educational standards while a large number of critical findings from randomized, controlled studies and correlational studies that overwhelmingly show minimal support for the suggested policy have been marked as irrelevant and excluded. The current blanket-emphasis on program-based studies at the expense of the other types of research is misplaced. Educational standards should represent a balanced view of the available data including findings from controlled and correlational studies. Finally, we indicate how these different forms of research might inform each other and provide coherent and consistent implications for educational procedures.</description><subject>Academic standards</subject><subject>Child and School Psychology</subject><subject>Commentary</subject><subject>Correlation</subject><subject>Correlational studies</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Education policy</subject><subject>Educational Policy</subject><subject>Educational Practices</subject><subject>Educational Psychology</subject><subject>Evidence</subject><subject>Learning and Instruction</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Program Effectiveness</subject><subject>Psychological research</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials</subject><subject>Science Education</subject><subject>Sciences education</subject><issn>1040-726X</issn><issn>1573-336X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kFtLw0AQhRdRsFb_gCAEfE7dzd6Sx1LijYKCFfq2LJNJ3ZImdTcV-u_dNqJvsg87nDPfMHMIuWZ0wijVd4FRJfKUZiylhRIqZSdkxKTmKedqeRprKmiqM7U8JxchrCmlhRZ8RIrFB3pMXEhsm5RfrsIWMJl5F6Lk2uQN3FEpqx3Y3nWtbZLXrnGwvyRntW0CXv38Y_J-Xy5mj-n85eFpNp2nIDLRpwA5IiBYixVXCDKnqKTVOUhmZR5roTRjIHJZ2yLPZKWoyFFURTxJA_AxuR3mbn33ucPQm3W383GPYDIlD4SWKnZNhq6VbdC4tu56byG-CjcOuhZrF_WppkpSVWQsAtkAgO9C8FibrXcb6_eGUXPI1AyZmpipOWZqDtDNAKF38AuUz4zzeAWPPh_8EL12hf5v13-mfgPRJIFg</recordid><startdate>20220601</startdate><enddate>20220601</enddate><creator>Zhang, Lin</creator><creator>Kirschner, Paul A.</creator><creator>Cobern, William W.</creator><creator>Sweller, John</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8A4</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8421-879X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220601</creationdate><title>There is an Evidence Crisis in Science Educational Policy</title><author>Zhang, Lin ; Kirschner, Paul A. ; Cobern, William W. ; Sweller, John</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-cc8eececaaed36ec580e65a78c51a58e6546711c485fa9825d6048e4d91067cc3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Academic standards</topic><topic>Child and School Psychology</topic><topic>Commentary</topic><topic>Correlation</topic><topic>Correlational studies</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Education policy</topic><topic>Educational Policy</topic><topic>Educational Practices</topic><topic>Educational Psychology</topic><topic>Evidence</topic><topic>Learning and Instruction</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Program Effectiveness</topic><topic>Psychological research</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials</topic><topic>Science Education</topic><topic>Sciences education</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Lin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kirschner, Paul A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cobern, William W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sweller, John</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Education Periodicals</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Educational psychology review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Zhang, Lin</au><au>Kirschner, Paul A.</au><au>Cobern, William W.</au><au>Sweller, John</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ1334673</ericid><atitle>There is an Evidence Crisis in Science Educational Policy</atitle><jtitle>Educational psychology review</jtitle><stitle>Educ Psychol Rev</stitle><date>2022-06-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>34</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>1157</spage><epage>1176</epage><pages>1157-1176</pages><issn>1040-726X</issn><eissn>1573-336X</eissn><abstract>There is a considerable gap between many of the findings from educational psychology research and educational practice. This gap is especially notable in the field of science education. In this article, the implications of three categories of research and their findings for science educational policy in the USA and other jurisdictions were reviewed. We indicate that a particular category of research that we call “Program-Based Studies,” has dominated the formulation of educational standards while a large number of critical findings from randomized, controlled studies and correlational studies that overwhelmingly show minimal support for the suggested policy have been marked as irrelevant and excluded. The current blanket-emphasis on program-based studies at the expense of the other types of research is misplaced. Educational standards should represent a balanced view of the available data including findings from controlled and correlational studies. Finally, we indicate how these different forms of research might inform each other and provide coherent and consistent implications for educational procedures.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><doi>10.1007/s10648-021-09646-1</doi><tpages>20</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8421-879X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1040-726X
ispartof Educational psychology review, 2022-06, Vol.34 (2), p.1157-1176
issn 1040-726X
1573-336X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2659825756
source SpringerNature Journals; EBSCOhost Education Source
subjects Academic standards
Child and School Psychology
Commentary
Correlation
Correlational studies
Education
Education policy
Educational Policy
Educational Practices
Educational Psychology
Evidence
Learning and Instruction
Methods
Program Effectiveness
Psychological research
Randomized Controlled Trials
Science Education
Sciences education
title There is an Evidence Crisis in Science Educational Policy
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-18T20%3A49%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=There%20is%20an%20Evidence%20Crisis%20in%20Science%20Educational%20Policy&rft.jtitle=Educational%20psychology%20review&rft.au=Zhang,%20Lin&rft.date=2022-06-01&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=1157&rft.epage=1176&rft.pages=1157-1176&rft.issn=1040-726X&rft.eissn=1573-336X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10648-021-09646-1&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA706506921%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2659825756&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A706506921&rft_ericid=EJ1334673&rfr_iscdi=true