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.

教育心理学研究和教育实践的许多发现之间存在相当大的差距。这种差距在科学教育领域尤为明显。在本文中，回顾了三类研究及其发现对美国和其他司法管辖区的科学教育政策的影响。我们指出，我们称为“基于项目的研究”的特定研究类别主导了教育标准的制定，而来自随机、对照研究和相关研究的大量关键发现绝大多数表明对建议政策的支持微乎其微。被标记为不相关并被排除在外。当前一揽子强调基于项目的研究而牺牲其他类型的研究是错误的。教育标准应该代表对可用数据的平衡看法，包括来自对照和相关研究的结果。最后，我们指出这些不同形式的研究如何相互交流，并为教育程序提供连贯一致的影响。