Qualitative research in science education: A literature review of current publications

Q3 Social Sciences
Sabrina D. Stanley, William Boden Robertson
{"title":"Qualitative research in science education: A literature review of current publications","authors":"Sabrina D. Stanley, William Boden Robertson","doi":"10.30935/scimath/14293","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study analyzed articles from the last four years regarding how science education research is framed and discussed as qualitative research. The research question that guided this study was: To what extent do qualitative secondary science teaching research publications reflect high-quality practices found in mainstream methodological texts? The researchers utilized a systematic literature review methodology by (1) creating search terms based on the research question; (2) choosing relevant databases in which to search; (3) conducting the search and gathering articles; and (4) selecting articles based on inclusion criteria. The researchers chose “secondary education” and “science teaching” as search terms relevant to this study. Articles included in the review were peer-reviewed for credibility, available free online as full-text for accessibility, and available in English, which is the authors’ first language. The researchers conducted three levels of screening on the full collection of articles–title, abstract, then methods, to efficiently narrow the large sample of qualitative science education research articles to a manageable and characteristic selection. The findings include that few articles addressed science teaching and learning with deep qualitative engagement. Some articles claimed to use specific qualitative methodologies without adequately expressing aspects of those methodologies, which lend support to the credibility, transferability, dependability, or confirmability of the articles such as the researchers’ subjectivity or member-checking. Those studies that did are indeed diamonds in the ruff.","PeriodicalId":36049,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education","volume":"7 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/14293","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study analyzed articles from the last four years regarding how science education research is framed and discussed as qualitative research. The research question that guided this study was: To what extent do qualitative secondary science teaching research publications reflect high-quality practices found in mainstream methodological texts? The researchers utilized a systematic literature review methodology by (1) creating search terms based on the research question; (2) choosing relevant databases in which to search; (3) conducting the search and gathering articles; and (4) selecting articles based on inclusion criteria. The researchers chose “secondary education” and “science teaching” as search terms relevant to this study. Articles included in the review were peer-reviewed for credibility, available free online as full-text for accessibility, and available in English, which is the authors’ first language. The researchers conducted three levels of screening on the full collection of articles–title, abstract, then methods, to efficiently narrow the large sample of qualitative science education research articles to a manageable and characteristic selection. The findings include that few articles addressed science teaching and learning with deep qualitative engagement. Some articles claimed to use specific qualitative methodologies without adequately expressing aspects of those methodologies, which lend support to the credibility, transferability, dependability, or confirmability of the articles such as the researchers’ subjectivity or member-checking. Those studies that did are indeed diamonds in the ruff.
科学教育中的定性研究:当前出版物文献综述
本研究分析了过去四年中有关如何将科学教育研究作为定性研究进行框架设计和讨论的文章。指导本研究的研究问题是中学科学教学定性研究出版物在多大程度上反映了主流方法论文本中的高质量实践?研究人员采用了系统的文献综述方法:(1) 根据研究问题创建搜索条件;(2) 选择相关数据库进行搜索;(3) 进行搜索并收集文章;(4) 根据纳入标准选择文章。研究人员选择了 "中学教育 "和 "科学教学 "作为与本研究相关的检索词。纳入综述的文章均经过同行评审,可信度高,可免费在线全文查阅,且以作者的母语英语撰写。研究人员对全部文章进行了三个层次的筛选--标题、摘要和方法,以便有效地将大量科学教育定性研究文章的样本缩小到一个可管理的、有特色的选择范围内。研究结果包括:很少有文章以深入的定性参与方式探讨科学教学。有些文章声称使用了特定的定性方法,但却没有充分表达这些方法的各个方面,而这些方面有助于提高文章的可信度、可转移性、可依赖性或可确认性,如研究人员的主观性或成员检查。这些研究确实是璞玉。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信